View all comments (2) - Comment on this review
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Movie Review
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Review
Who would have thought that Ben Stein, the game show host and famously drab economics
teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, would one day become the leading apologist for
the theory of intelligent design? Not me. But that's life for you -- a surprise around
every corner. Stein is the central figure in the new film, Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed, a fire-bomb documentary meant to burn down the house of "Big Science," whose members,
according to the film, have silenced all dissent from the theory of evolution and
are actively engaged in the persecution of anyone who doesn't toe the party line.
Expelled works in much the same way as a Michael Moore documentary -- a raft of provocation
and very little persuasion. It starts out by serving up a few case histories of scientists
who publicly declared their sympathy for intelligent design. In each case, five i
n all, reaction from the scientific establishment was swift. Tenure was denied, contracts
weren't renewed, websites were taken down, etc. Expelled would have you believe that
these cases represent instances of grave injustice and the contravention of academic
freedom, but it's poorly argued and lacks evidence. Tenure is often denied. Contracts
frequently aren't renewed. That's life, especially in academia. More evidence is required
to build a compelling case, and the makers of Expelled don't want to get bogged down
in chronicling academic intrigues. Can't say I blame them, but their lack of rigor
doesn't help their cause.
Expelled then goes on to interview a number of proponents of intelligent design.
Each of them sounds smart, obviously more knowledgeable about science and the origin
of life than I am, but the film fails to define exactly what these men think and
what they're proposing. I understand they reject the theory of evolution. I understand
that intelligent design involves a "designer." But what else? What would intelligent
design research contribute to the body of science literature? How would intelligent
design researchers test their claims? Unfortunately, the film doesn't bother to provide answers
to these questions.
Perhaps the worst part of Expelled comes when Stein tries to connect the theory of
evolution and Nazism. While it's true that Hitler used Darwin's theories to support
his ideology, it's intellectually dishonest to associate, however tenuously, today's
scientific community with Nazism. Too often in today's public discourse, people feel
it's not enough merely to assert that their ideological opponent is wrong -- they
must also claim he's evil. This is shameless demagoguery, and it's not persuasive
or constructive.
Another component of Expelled is interviews with leading scientists -- such as Richard
Dawkins, author of The God Delusion -- who seem thrilled at the chance to ridicule not only
intelligent design and its proponents but all people of faith. In interviews leading
up to the release of Expelled, many of these scientists have said that their quotes
were taken out of context and that the filmmakers misrepresented themselves in the
interviews. Listening to these men throughout the course of the movie, it's hard
to feel much sympathy for them. As poorly as Stein and the rest of the makers of
Expelled acquit themselves in the film, Dawkins and his cohorts are every bit as
vicious.
And that's the one thing that Expelled manages to expose -- the rancor and malice
on both ends of this issue. It isn't an argument so much as it's a war, complete
with soldiers and battles and funding and propaganda. Expelled isn't a thoughtfully
rendered documentary about the freedom of inquiry; it's a shot across the bow of
the scientific establishment. And it just doesn't work.
Reviewer: Matt McKillop
One of the truly strange things about this "documentary" is its failure to create
a companion website with the facts mentioned in the film.
There's good reason for that failure! Each of the stories of the five "expelled"
is fundamentally flawed. The actual stories of the five are well-covered, with footnotes,
in the Wikipedia entry for this website. Just go to wikipedia.org and search for
expelled no intelligence
Most egregious is the story of the "fired" Smithsonian researcher. He was never ever
an employee of the Smithsonian in the first place, and continues to have what he
always did: a volunteer position with that institution.
The webpage also documents the gross distortions to Darwin's quote: it shows the
words the filmmakers "quoted" and Darwin's actual words.
One must ask: if this "documentary" had a case to make, why didn't they bother to
do a fundamental fact-check on what they presented?
To anyone wanting to watch this film, I strongly recommend checking this website
FIRST.
Stein is no dummy. In fact he was the top of his class at Yale Law school in 1970.
No one is debating that change happens over time. What is in question is whether
or not it is random mutation or the intentional effort of a creator that is responsible for
the design which we see as scientists. It is the theology of Darwinism that has
become problematic. If the hypothesis is that "random" action and mutation caused
the life and the complexity we see around us and under the microscope, then we must
PROVE that this is likely. We can't begin to do so. Darwinist have no idea how life
began. No idea how all the information provided by DNA got there in the first place.
NO IDEA. Some of us think we see evidence of a creator in the evidence that is comin
g forward. We think the evidence points toward intentionality and stands against
those who claim the complexity we see is an accident.
One could argue that this doesn't add much to the scientific endeavor, and I might
agree. However, an atheistic interpretation doesn't add a lot either. Dawkins is
a philosopher pretending to be a scientist. His evidence does not prove that God
is not involved in the creation of life or its progress across the ages. I don't
have a problem with many of Darwin's ideas, but when Darwinism crosses over to metaphysics
it has ceased to be science and it is increasingly obvious that it can not sustain
its metaphysical claims. Because this is true, a debate of other options seems appropriate.
View all comments (2) - Comment on this review







