13 Responses to “Open your mind, keep your brains in, watch ‘Expelled’”

1. Benjamin Franklin says:
   April 21st, 2008 at 10:50 am

   Intelligent Design is by no means a “new idea’. It was proposed centuries ago. It clearly also is not “banned” from academia.

   One of the interviews that was done for Expelled was with Allen MacNeill of Cornell University, but it didn’t make it into the film. in his interview, Dr MacNeill brings up the fact that he not olny discusses ID in his courses, but has, on many occassions invited, and has allowed ID and creationist proponents into his classes to make presentations. I can only suppose that the producers, who stated as to why they didn’t present the viewpoints of any scientists who are professed Christians such as Dr Ken Miller, or Dr Francis Collins as “unneccesarily confusing the movie”, that they felt the same about Dr MacNeill’s interview. Do you think that that would have “confused” the issue? I think that it would have severely undercut the false dichotomy that the movie tried to establish that there are either scientists who understand evolution, and they are, therefore atheists, or you believe in God.

   Intelligent design is talked about in academia. Teaching about intelligent design in higher education institutions is not forbidden, or censured, and in fact, new courses are added every year. Indeed, the intelligent design-promoting web site ResearchIntelligentDesign.org proudly lists “100+ universities and colleges” that officially include “intelligent design in their lesson plans”. These courses generally examine intelligent design objectively and in an appropriate context, and their instructors do so openly. So intelligent design has, in fact, entered academia, although not quite in the fashion its advocates might prefer. What they seek, of course, is for intelligent design to be accepted as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. They have failed to make a convincing case for it, yet they seem to believe that they have an entitlement to a place in academia.

   On the contrary, new ideas are not automatically installed in universities and classrooms: they must earn their place. The intelligent design movement diligently promotes the idea that intelligent design belongs in science classes, even while acknowledging that progress in the laboratory is lagging. In 1998, Discovery Institute personnel drafted a strategy document, commonly called the Wedge Document. The authors laid out a multi-phase plan, beginning with research, building up to a wholesale cultural renewal, including inclusion of intelligent design into public school classrooms. The promises of this document, compared to the actual accomplishments of the movement, are telling. Are you familiar with teh Wedge Document?

   The Wedge Document proposed that by 2003 they would have “Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)” and “One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows.” They are nowhere near that benchmark even five years past their deadline, especially in the critically important “academic and technical articles” category. And yet, they described this first phase, “Research, Writing and Publication” as “the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.” They lack solid scholarship, research, and argument; yet the project is continuing.

   The second, indoctrination, phase, has been far more successful. This phase was to include:

   …production of a … documentary on intelligent design and its implications…. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to “popularize” our ideas in the broader culture.

   Expelled is clearly a part of that agenda, and the fact that they have released this film before completing, or even making a serious effort at “the essential component of everything that comes afterward” is a sign where their priorities lie.

   Dr Miller make the comment after the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, and I think it bears repeating here.

   ”I want to make the observation that is: advocates of intelligent design like to paint themselves as the lone heroes fighting against scientific dogma. They got a really revolutionary idea, and they’re gonna convince everybody in science; give ‘em a couple of decades. And you know, maybe they will. Maybe they will. And they cite the Big Bang as an example of an idea that was once regarded with suspicion, or as heresy, and gradually won over. But the interesting thing is not the question as to whether or not revolutionary ideas occasionally win out in science. The interesting idea, the interesting question, is “how” do revolutionary ideas win out. And the Big Bang won out because of scientific research, because Arto & Penzious found the background radiation to the Big Bang. They completed the theory. They stitched it together. It was a predictive theory, that says you ought to go out and find this in nature.

   Now the curious thing is the advocates of that theory did not try to get themselves injected into curricula. They didn’t produce pamphlets on how you could get the Big Bang taught in your school district and avoid the constitutional questions. They did the research, they won the scientific battle. That’s how science actually works. And for all the high-minded statements about design, about the philosophy of Aristotle, about fairness, and about the implicit theological assumptions of evolution, the straightforward and simple matter, is that science works, and it is particularly good at predicting stuff that isn’t true. If intelligent design has the facts of nature on its side, it’ll win out. And I don’t see any particular reason to fight this legal route, unless, unless, the battle you are fighting is primarily political, cultural, social, and religious, and not scientific. And in this case, to use a nice lawyer term, res ipse loquitor, the facts speak for themselves.”

   The facts here, clearly, are that the producers of Expelled attempted to make their point, but did so in such a dishonest way, that the only things that it will accomplish are making people who are uniformed about evolution feel good about their misconceptions, and hinder the effort of the Discovery Institute to portray ID as not being a religion based, creationism influenced concept.

   On another note, I invite you to read Dr Macneill’s take on how Hitler actually had creationist concepts, not darwinian concepts. Here is the link http://schelfam.net/atheism/index.php?topic=401.msg815;topicseen His is reply #2.

   Benjamin Franklin

2. Tom Keefe says:
   April 21st, 2008 at 12:12 pm

   Hi “Benjamin Franklin,”

   You’ve responded with a lengthy comment that covers several points. I’m going to address those that relate to the point of my original post; i.e., I encourage people to view the documentary, “Expelled,” because it highlights a disparity in the discussion of two theories: evolution and intelligent design.

   This is not the place to discuss the specific merits of either evolution or intelligent design. I wrote the post because I want the discussion to take place calmly, rationally and without prejudice. I don’t think that this has happened.

   In that context, here are some thoughts regarding points that you made:

   * “[Intelligent Design] clearly also is not “banned” from academia.” I would agree with a statement such as, “Before intelligent design is offered as a counter theory to evolution in an academic settting, it must be supported by sufficent evidence.” I don’t agree that the theory hasn’t been “banned” from academia because of the examples listed in the “Expelled” documentary and other quotes that I’ve read from various journalistic sources, in which the topic had been kept out of classroom discussions. Not everywhere, as you correctly state.
   * “new ideas are not automatically installed in universities and classrooms: they must earn their place.” I agree, and would add that old ideas should not automatically remain in classrooms; they, also, must continue to earn their place. Proponents of evolutionary theory worked long and hard to reach the point where the theory became part of general academic
   study. If intelligent design is worthy of the same place in academic curricula, it must be supported by evidence. I would guess that you and I differ as to the validity of evidence both to support evolution and intelligent design. But I don’t want this to become a discussion of that aspect of the debate. It is being waged in many other places, more suitable than this blog. I want the scientific and academic communities to feel free to engage in the debate.
   * I appreciate your thoughts regarding the Wedge Document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy), and invite my readers to search online for more information regarding it. However, it is not germane to the point of my post; it is a strategy document developed by an organization.
   * I agree that the Big Bang theory should be debated in the classroom, not the courts. I also believe that we need a better answer to the question, “How did something (the material contained within the Big Bang) come from nothing?” To me, it is statistically absurd to state that life began by a chance meeting of the 250 components that needed to be combined in exactly the correct order to produce the living organism. (The odds of that happening are greater than the threshold of possibility, in most people’s minds.) But even more absurd is the refusal to even consider how the Big Bang matter came into existence. What “science” ever teaches that something comes from nothing? No, we are taught that everything comes from something before it, such as matter and energy.
   * I don’t know whether I will make time to read the Dr. Macneill creationist concepts link that you included. The reason is that I don’t need to decide why Adolf Hitler thought it was okay to massacre millions of people. To me, it was prima facie evil, and isn’t justifiable in any context.

   Again, thanks for the time and care you took in your comment. Please continue the discussion if you wish; only keep it to the point of my post, not to a debate on the two theories.

3. Benjamin Franklin says:
   April 21st, 2008 at 1:10 pm

   Tom,

   thanks for posting my response.

   For a few weeks before the movie opened, I responded to blogs showing the trailer and advocating the readers to see the movie. The essay that I posted was neither inflamatory nor did it “bash” God or ID, but rather I pointed out, in a reasonable fashion, with citations, where the movie did not tell the whole story. If you like, I would be happy to post it here for you to look at, but that’s your choice. In a nutshell, I pointed out that the movie didn’t present the views of Christians who find no problem in reconciling their theism with their science, in particular, Ken Miller and Francis Collins. I also pointed out some facts about Crocker, Gonzalez, and Sternburg that were not presented in the movie.

   I posted this essay at over 150 sites.

   At 42% of the blogs, my essay was simply deleted without it even being presented on the blog.

   On 9% of the blogs, my essay was posted without any response whatsoever.

   On 22% of the sites, my essay was posted, and either the reponse written did not address my points, or my followup comments to the response were never posted.

   At 9% of the sites, my comments were met with insults and hostility (more so at the ultra conservative political sites than the religious sites)

   At only 18% of the sites, my comments were posted, rational responsed were given, and a reasonable dialog ensued.

   What do you make of this?

   I have seen the movie, but I had really done sufficient research before seeing it, so that it held no surprises for me and it hardly differed at all from the knowledge that I had about it beforehand.

   I agree with a lot of what you say. But one thing I do want to address. You said “This is not the place to discuss the specific merits of either evolution or intelligent design.” I am fine with that, and won’t discuss the merits of either, but I do want to point out, and I think that you would agree with this, is that science is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy. So the merits of the concepts we are discussing are a relevant factor. One thing I got from Expelled is that the proponents feel the merits of ID are equal to the theory of evolution, but if that is not the case, how do the claims the movie make hold up?

4. Tom Keefe says:
   April 21st, 2008 at 2:12 pm

   Good questions and follow-up thoughts, Ben Franklin.

   It wouldn’t surprise me that you were engaged in conversation at only 18% of the blogs where you posted, if they had anywhere near the number of comments that I saw on the official Expelled blog. My comment there was somewhere around 930! It is difficult to maintain a flow of conversation when so many other comments post around you.

   Of course, another reason is that a certain percentage of bloggers don’t want a two-way conversation that would put their thoughts in a bad light. I can live with rational disagreement, and have changed my perspective at times thanks to an insight from a reader.

   Your final paragraph contains an important point. Science is not a democracy, and concepts need to be vetted and supported by research and fact-checking. I want both theories–evolution and intelligent design–to be afforded consideration and study.

   Back to an original point of my blog: Freedom of thought and expression are important to me (and to millions–billions?–of others). In a “free” society such as the United States where I live, that freedom is maintained only so long as its people are willing and able to require it–not relinquish it.

   The Expelled documentary purports to show examples where that freedom of scientific inquiry has been squashed. I oppose anything that would limit our ability to advance knowledge–unless in doing so, we would impose unnecessary pain and suffering on others. (The “experiments” conducted in Nazi concentration camps is an example of my point.)

   That said, I would prefer that we separate the study of evolution and intelligent design. Not look at them together, but study the evidence and merits of each individually. If that study results in reasonable evidence that could support one or both of the theories, then our educational institutions should present the theory (or theories) along with the evidence, in curricula.

5. Benjamin Franklin says:
   April 22nd, 2008 at 8:12 am

   Tom

   Yes, I agree with you that it would be preferable to look at the evidence and merits of bot evolution and ID individually. Further, I would have no problems at all that if a empirical is built for ID, that it could be presented in curricula.

   Are you familiar with the Biologic Institute? It was set up by the Discovery Institute over 2 years ago to do precisely what you are looking for. To analyse the information angle regarding design. Sadly, after millions of dollars invested, their output has been zero.

   This, I feel, is a major reason why the scientific community shows little respect for ID. There are cries of purported persecution, suppression and discrimination, supported by major PR efforts such as those by the Discovery Institute and Expelled, but no real contributions to the actual science.

   Look at the activities of the major credentialed ID proponents, like Behe, Dembski, Meyers, Egnor. All they have produced in the last 5 years are a couple of mainstream books, but no research, no experiments, no testing of hypotheses.

   Are there pompous, prima donna academitians? I wouldn’t doubt it for a second. Have some ID proponents been treated unfairly for their beliefs? I would say probably so. But is it the vast, conspiratorial, cabalistic plot Expelled makes it out to be? I would say definately not.

   I can also point to several cases where proponents of evolutionary theory have felt they were likewise suppressed for their views, ie Comer in Texas. Such is life.

   One thing I can state with a high degree of confidence, I am not aware of any cases where ID proponents have been either physically assaulted, or threatened with physical force, but both Judge Jones and Mrs Kitzmiller from the Dover case recieved death threats after the decision was issued.

   And by the way, the sites I posted my essay at were all small blogs with only a couple of responses, 10 tops. Not the sites like Expelled, although I was active at that site with comments.

   Your Thoughts?

6. Tom Keefe says:
   April 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 am

   In the case where the owner of a small blog doesn’t participate in a conversation with you, or anyone else who expresses a contrary viewpoint, I go back to my earlier statement:

   “Of course, another reason is that a certain percentage of bloggers don’t want a two-way conversation that would put their thoughts in a bad light. I can live with rational disagreement, and have changed my perspective at times thanks to an insight from a reader.”

   You remain welcome on this site, Mr. Franklin, as do any people who would express an opposing viewpoint to yours, in the same respectful, considered way. I’ve enjoyed the conversation!

7. Benjamin Franklin says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 8:39 am

   Tom

   As you involved with the IABC, do you have any input as to the copyright infringement suit being filed by Yoko Ono re Expelled’s use of Imagine in the movie?

   Do you think the producers can make a legimate case for it under Fair Use Doctrine?

8. Tom Keefe says:
   April 24th, 2008 at 9:27 am

   Because I’m not a legal expert, I searched the U.S. Copyright Office website for its “ fact sheet” on the Fair Use Doctrine.

   Criticsm, comment, scholarship and research are various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair.” I believe that “Expelled” fits there.

   Other aspects of each situation must be considered, including the purpose and character of the use, including:
   * whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
   * the nature of the copyrighted work;
   * amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
   *the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

   Stein wove John Lennon’s “Imagine” lyrics into the documentary’s commentary, and used only a few seconds of the actual song. My personal viewpoint is that Stein’s use was legitimate under Fair Use.

   Two final points from the U.S. Copyright Office fact sheet:

   * The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. (I doubt that Yoko would grant this.)
   * If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. (I would bet that Stein followed this advice.)

   The topic of Fair Use has come up in communications related blogs and podcasts; particularly podcasts that intersperse short clips of copyrighted music and audio for dramatic or entertainment purposes.

9. Benjamin Franklin says:
   April 25th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

   I had seen similar information. If it progresses to court I “imagine” that it will come down to who has the better lawyers.

   One point I want to make though, Stein is really not much more than a “face” for the movie (although he is also credited as being a writer). I read an interview with the executive producer of Expelled (Logan Craft) with the Texas Southern Baptist Convention magazine “Texan” where Craft states on how Ben Stein came to be involved in the picture, that another producer (John Sullivan) had the idea that first and foremost, they needed someone who wasn’t “overtly Christian” and not “overtly religious”. A minor deception(?) ploy(?) strategy (?), but indicative of the thoughts and actions of the movies’ producers.

   http://www.sbtexan.com/default.asp?action=article&aid=5533&issue=2/4/2008

10. Tom Keefe says:
    April 26th, 2008 at 11:35 am

    Thanks for the link to the “Texan” interview, Benjamin Franklin. I don’t read “deception” or “ploy” into the decision to involve Ben Stein. Here is a portion of the interview, so that other readers can decide for themselves:

    TEXAN: How did Ben Stein come to be involved in the film?

    CRAFT: Well, John had a real insight, we believe, into the necessity to have a person, first of all, who wasn’t overtly Christian or overtly religious and also someone who had a comic element to their personality or their repertoire, but also an intellectual. Well, that kind of limits the field. There aren’t that many of those folks out there.

    Once Ben became acquainted with what we were doing, he got excited because he began to see a connection between our exploration and sanctity of life issues. He’s a very, very strong pro-life advocate. He has a high view of human dignity and human sanctity. And he saw a connection between what we were exploring, and sanctity of life issues and the historical elements of the eugenics movement, and especially as a Jewish person, the eugenics movement as it morphed into the Nazi racial cleansing laws.

    TEXAN: How do you answer those who charge that ID is simply a Trojan horse for getting six-day biblical creationism taught in public schools?

    CRAFT: That’s fanciful to the point of comedy. Understand that although all the producers are Christians and we have, let’s say, complementary views about most moral issues, I can’t say we came to this project with any uniform view or underlying agenda.

11. Pauli Ojala says:
    May 1st, 2008 at 12:53 am

    ‘Kampf’ was a direct translation of ‘struggle’ from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Seinen Kampf. His application.

    Stein is under heavy artillery for ‘exaggerating’ or ‘going easy’ on the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the ‘Politics-is-applied-biology’ Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I.

    It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous Haeckel with his still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc. in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871.

    Catch 22: Haeckel’s 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled for the ‘public understanding of science’ (PUS) in most biology text books until this millennium, although Haeckel’s crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS – and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it.

    Some edited quotes from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a ‘bit’):
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf

    The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between “white” and “colored races” was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).

    The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould’s scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87). Typically, the operations hit blacks the most in the US, poor women in the Europe, and often the victims were never even told they had been sterilized.

    Mendelism outweighed recapitulation (embryos climbing up their evolutionary tree through fish-, amphibian- and reptilian stages), but that merely smoothened the way for the brutal 1930’s biolegislation – that quickly penetrated practically all Western countries. The laws were copied from country to country. The A-B-O blood groups, haemophilia, eye colours etc. were found to be inherited in a Mendelian fashion by 1910. So also the complex traits and social (mis)behaviour such as alcoholism, schizophrenia, manic depression, criminality, rebelliousness, artistic sense, pauperism, racial differences, inherited scholarship (and its converse, feeble-mindedness) were all thought to be determined by one or two genes. Mendelism was “experimental” and quantitative, and its exaggeration outweighed the more cautious biometry operating on smaller variations, not discontinuous leaps. Its advocates boldly claimed that these problems could be done away within a few generations through selection, persisted (although most biologists must have known that defective genes could not be eliminated, even with the most intense forced sterilizations and marriage restrictions due to recessive genes and synergism. Nevertheless, these laws were held until 1970′s and were typically changed only when the abortion legislation were released (1973).

    So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938 ) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the ‘Up’ of the ancient city from Plinius’ Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17). Today, Swedish state church is definitely the most liberal in the face of the world.

    Hitler’s formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the “Nordics”, a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel’s position on the ‘Judenfrage’ was assimilation and Expelled-command from their university chairs, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

    In 1917 the immigration of “defective” groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
    Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the “nordic” balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

    Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
    and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Regarding us Finns, Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the “yellow” group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.

    Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century. And she went Full Monty.

    Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, ‘legally’. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

    I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee, that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

    pauli.ojala@gmail.com
    Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

12. Max says:
    June 22nd, 2008 at 5:53 am

    If “ID” or “Crationism” is being accused of playing politics how much more so with “Evolution” or “Atheism”? This blog is great because if we do “Open” our minds to all the possibilities we will not leave “ID” or “Creationism” out. Logic should prevail, not chaos! Why do people flare up so bad when you mention intelligence? That does not seem logical to me, how about you? When you squeel on the bad guy they usually get mad, look at the mob! Therefore I believe that the move “Expelled” should be watched and considered because I believe in logic, fairness and the laws of the universe. Thanks! Max. http://www.MrSunshine.US

13. Andrew says:
    July 20th, 2008 at 12:38 am

    The one troubling part of the film, for me, is the part where Biologists are blamed for the Holocaust.

    The blame for the Holocaust lies with the Nazis, and the Nazis alone. Darwin never advocated genocide. To place the blame on biologists is an absurdity.

    I would encourage you to google “Godwin’s Law”. It is common for people to associate what they don’t like with Hiter and the Nazis. It is dishonest hyperbole.

    The film also ignores what Biologists have given mankind: Modern Medicine.

Leave a Reply