“Lights, Camera, Blasphemy”

These videos highlight the dramatic influence movies have had on public perceptions of Christianity. 

If you only have time for one, please watch the second (along with the last minute of the first).  It addresses the major errors in the movie Inherit the Wind, a pro-Darwinian evolution / anti-Christian propoganda piece about the “Scopes Monkey Trial” that has been shown to countless public school children in the name of “science.”  It is reprehensible and dishonest, with one premeditated lie after another designed to put Christians in the worst possible light and to make the atheists appear to be the nice, reasoned people.  Also see this with more background about William Jennings Bryan and common mischaracterizations about him. 

The same thing is going on these days with Al Gore’s infomercial An Inconvenient Truth.  Any school that shows either movie should have to follow it up with Ben Stein’s Expelled!

Hat tip: The Bumbling Genius

0 thoughts on ““Lights, Camera, Blasphemy””

  1. While it could be true that you believe that “two wrongs make a right,” it’s more probable that you don’t. Therefore, it should be asked, do you sincerely believe Stein’s movie represents a balanced documentary?


  2. Hi Robert,

    No, I don’t believe that two wrongs make a right, and I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt.

    Yes, Stein’s documentary was much more balanced. There is a lot of data here outlining complaints against the movie and responses to them — http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/03/expelled-exposed-exposed.html .

    One example is where Richard Dawkins got a lot of attention over claims that turned out to be quite false. He even admitted as such.

    I think that every school that has shown Inherit the Wind owes an apology to their students and should come clean on the truth.


  3. Actually, my question was whether you believe Stein’s movie is a balanced documentary, not whether it’s “much more balanced” (than?). As far as I can tell, the movie was pretty much universally criticized. For example, Variety magazine wrote about it,

    While roving interviewer Ben Stein extracts some choice soundbites from scientists on both sides of the creation-vs.-evolution debate, the film’s flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals.


  4. I think you tipped your hand with the “universally criticized comment.”

    I thought it was highly accurate. Stein was gracious in giving people opportunities to clarify their views, especially when they said something silly like how life may have evolved on the backs of crystals. They got to talk at length, so it wasn’t like he took things out of context. Again, read the link I supplied and see the responses to the critics. For example, Dawkins admitted that he misled people with his account of how the movie was made.


  5. Robert,

    With all due respect, are you really expecting Variety magazine–a magazine whose sole purpose is to glorify the perverted music and movie and fashion industries–to write a favorable review Expelled? The people at Variety have more in common with the evolutionists than they do with Ben Stein.


  6. Hi DBJA,

    Great to hear from you!

    I had heard about issues with the movie but seeing the clips made it clear just how outrageous the bias was.

    Just one example: Scopes never went to jail in real life but the movie shows him in jail with glass bottles thrown at him and a threatened lynching from a hostile crowd. All lies!


  7. When my son saw this in High School I had not seen it before. He came home pretty upset about the behavior of Christians.

    So I did some research, I even looked at the trial transcript. If there is anything in that movie that is exactly true, I missed it.

    Sadly, in real life, Clarence Darrow was paid by the ACLU with money partly provided by the Methodist Church. I am not sure if he was paid for his time, or just for expenses.

    I have dial-up internet service so I have not watched the clips.


  8. You call this post “Lights, Camera, Blasphemy”. You also tag it with the tag “intelligent design”. You clearly reject avolution. Yet by rejecting evolution in favour of creationism/intelligent design you yourself commit blasphemy. Rejecting evolution requires rejecting the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Implicit in rejecting the evidence for evolution is the idea that God placed the evidence with intent to mislead. And how could calling God deceitful or deceptive not be blasphemous?


  9. Nice dodge, Rob. I reject evolution for good reasons. What this post is about is the deceptions of those advancing your cause. Feel free to comment back on the actual content of the post. Given the outright frauds perpetrated by so many in the macro-evolutionary community and the media and entertainment businesses you expect me to change positions because you show up with a couple links?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s