Expelled—The Review
I just got back from watching Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The short review is: this is an incredible movie. It is very well-made and it makes a point about freedom that must be made. Everyone should take the opportunity to watch.
The longer review below the fold
The movie traces Stein’s journey through learning about the treatment that scientists and others that either support Intelligent Design or support its scientific discussion. He demonstrates the persecution that has been purported on people who do not tow the neo-Darwinist line. This persecution takes the form of being fired from jobs; contracts not being renewed; reputations being ruined; and tenure being denied. This does not count ad hominem attacks and being called names. He allowed the ID proponents to demonstrate why their ideas are not creationism or creation science. He traced some of the implications of neo-Darwinism which I won’t relate in this review.
The conclusion of the movie was a call to action. There is a wall between naturalism and deism that has hampered the exercise of science. The call was to pull down that wall so that science can be benefited by a free discourse of ideas—allow science to be science. The unanswered question is for each person in the audience—what you need to do in order to help break down that wall.
The movie is very well made. They integrate interviews with clips of other movies or film clips that help to interpret the situation. This also kept the movie very interesting and gave a bit of comic relief to the serious subject matter. Music, similarly, was used creatively. The shots were extreme close-ups, which some may not care for. The camera work was the shaky style, which is current and popular, but I have never cared for.
Expelled makes a profound point about freedom—of thought, association, and academic. It also makes that point that science is not well served by the suppression of open discussion. It should not take too much imagination to figure out that the walls that have put up that keep the concept of a designer to be discussed in science are also used to keep other ideas away from true science—the simple example is global warming.
My first answer to the question that I was left with at the end of the movie is to encourage others to see Expelled. It is a truly important film.
April 19th, 2008 at 4:25 am
It’s too bad that the film falls flat on its face for several reasons:
1. The so-called “expelled” people in the film weren’t actually expelled. Sternberg, for example, wasn’t fired. His tenure was over at that time anyway! So why does the film lie about this?
2. The ID movement itself is extremely censorship happy. Have you ever looked at Dembski’s own blog? He actively censors comments and bans people who don’t agree with him. What was that about freedom of speech again?
3. The film only shows you one side of the story. It does not show you all the christians who accept evolution, as that would have shown the premise of the film to be flawed. In fact, when asked why well known christian biologist and evolutionist Ken Miller wasn’t interviewed, producer Mark Mathis candidly admitted that it “would have confused the message of the film unnecessarily”.
4. Even the leaders of the ID movement admit that they have no real research. So why do they want to circumvent the scientific process and force their religion into science? If they want to be taken seriously as scientists, they need to produce research!
Then you have things like the fact that both Hitler and Stalin rejected evolution, so why are they mentioned at all? Furthermore, what does it matter? Evolution doesn’t become more or less correct depending on whether Hitler or Stalin accepted ir or not.
In the end, Expelled is a dishonest hit-piece which seeks to undermine science and replace it with religion. It lies about things like the Sternberg case. It makes false claims about academic freedom (the problem with the ID movement is that it wants to be considered scientific without doing all the hard scientific research). And so on.
April 19th, 2008 at 4:52 am
Just a simple question:
Does the movie ever mention the fact that Stalin rejected evolution because he thought it led to capitalism?
If not, why do you think that is?
April 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Haven’t seen it yet, but hope to do so tonight or tomorrow. At minimum, I’m hoping for a Michael-Moore-like effort.
To sreper…
1.) Does Stein say that people were expelled– or the idea of ID is being expelled? To what extent is “expelled” a useful and reasonably accurate term that connects to his “school” theme– and not to be taken literally?
2.) I don’t know how Dembski regulates his blog. Despite some potential irony in your point, this is not a helpful argument for your case. If you allow for Dembski’s “censorship”, then Stein’s is far worse. What you would need is Dembski’s to be far worse than what Stein cites.
3.) No Christians accept Evolution– defined as a comprehensive explanation for the development of life that eliminates God. All Christians believe in evolution– as in the infinitesimal changes we observe from one thing to another. Christians are free to believe, theologically, that God created and then used evolution for a little or a lot.
Beyond theology and moving to science, it is clear that Evolution does not provide any sort of comprehensive “explanation”; it provides a nice *story* with a smattering of scientific evidences as support. An evolutionist uses more hand-waving and “just-so” stories than a miracle-wielding theist.
4.) I’d need to see a quote from an ID leader that “they have no real research”. Perhaps it depends on how one defines “real”?
April 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Eric, I would love for you to add your thoughts on the movie after you have seen it. Sreper, you should watch it as well, as it would clear up some of your misunderstandings of the movie.
1. Stein did not say that Sternberg was fired. He was demoted. His term as editor was up of the journal that he was editing, but it is what happened to him after that that is being labeled “Expelled”.
2. Eric has adequately answered this issue. If his blog was supposed to be something related to a peer-reviewed journal, we might have an issue here. But a blog is a blog and editing of something that you own is not “censorship”.
3. The film talks about Christians who support evolution. It does not sweep it under the rug. It minimizes their import, which I believe is correct–particularly as Eric discusses.
4. The movie shows ID researchers saying that they DO have real research. So this argument is patently wrong.
Stalin was not mentioned in connection with accepting evolution. Hitler was. I would have to see much more evidence to say that he was not influenced by it. Clearly the American Eugenics movement relied on evolution, with which Indiana has a sad connection. At a minimum, Hitler was positively impressed with the Eugenics movement which influenced much of the experimentation that he had performed on so many people.
April 19th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
They also did not mention Stalin thinking that evolution led to capitalism. I’m not sure that I consider Stalin a very good commentator of science or even political science.
What they DID show is that the very vocal neo-Darwinists believe that evolution leads to atheism. Atheism seems to have been a bigger influence in Stalin’s economic system of communism rather than the economic system of capitalism.
So if they did mention Stalin, it should have been in the context of “what a poor student of economic history.”
April 20th, 2008 at 9:11 am
The movie is really joke. Did you notice how the movie completely avoids using any scientific evidence on either side-it simply whines about scientists who have “lost their job” because they were IDers.
As stated before, many weren’t actually fired. And if IDers do receive prejudice from the scientific community, it’s for a good reason. It’s not science.
Science is backed up by evidence. Scientific theories explain why something happened, explicitly. ID has no scientific evidence. It explains nothing. It assumes that because humans can’t figure out why something happened, it must have been an “intelligent designer.” The theory muses-some being, at some point, somehow created us. There’s no scientific evidence so it’s not a theory. I laugh when people claim it’s not Creationism.
April 20th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
For those who are interested in understanding what ID is– and is not– I recommend Dembski’s book, The Design Revolution. It is (quite) rare that people– either supposed proponents or opponents– have any clear understanding about ID.
I have also blogged at length on this– after reading Dembski’s book and participating in a debate on ID.
http://schansblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-about-some-intelligent-discussion.html
enjoy!
April 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Mikeyc, you are creating a strawman argument here. The movie did not contend that all of the ID supporting scientists were fired, though some were. What was contended is that their careers have been pushed toward the toilet because of their support for open discussion of ID.
“Scientific theories explain why something happened, explicitly. ID has no scientific evidence.” There is so much wrong with these two statements it is hard to know where to begin. First, science is primarily concerned with what will happen in the future, not the past. Second, there is no more “evidence” for neo-Darwinism than there is for ID or other theories. Third, you do not START with evidence. You start with hypothesis and then move to building experiments that can be used to determine if there is good evidence. The reality is that both ID and neo-Darwinism are really not even theories, but rather hypotheses.
Your explanation of ID is pathetic. Many in the field are not even creationists. Some are theistic evolutionists (a god created and guided the process, but used macro evolution as the mechanism).
Your last paragraph is actually a demonstration of the problem. First, you have not taken the time to actually understand what ID is–you are simply taking the neo-Darwinist propaganda. Second, if you are correct, then there should not be a problem in the world with removing all of the restrictions that are being experienced by supporters of ID to be published. If there is really no “scientific evidence” it will become clear in the journals. Instead, we are having this discussion in the media and the courts.
(Did you see the movie, or are you just quoting stuff from other sources?)
April 21st, 2008 at 6:36 am
I’m producing a blog entry to review Stein’s film. In the meantime, here’s what the film says about Sternberg: he was “nearly ruined”, exiled, pressured to resign, and lost his office.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Eric’s review is at:
http://schansblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-excelled.html
It is excellent and more detailed than mine because he was nutty enough to go into the movie and take notes.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
@ericschansberg
1. ID is religion. ID is trying to circumvent the scientific provess, and gain scientific recognition without doing science! That’s like a random guy calling himself Ph.D. without going through the proper steps. (Much like Kent Hovind, then.)
2. Dembski is a well known ID proponent, and he actively censors opinions on his site, and bans anyone who doesn’t tow the party line (”ID is the best”, etc.)
3. Lots of christians DO accept evolution. Your definition of evolution is circular, dishonest and extremely biased. (Who are you to decide what methods God may have used? Do you believe that each and every single snow crystal is manually carved out by God, rather than God creating the laws of nature to allow for crystals to form?) Even the pope accepts evolution!
4. No, ID leaders have admitted outright that they have no research.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
@Joel Harris:
1. Sternberg ignored the proper processes and published the article without proper review. He basically snuck a religious text into a scientific journal. That’s like a priest preaching that there is no God! Should such a priest be allowed to continue preaching?
2. The point is that the Expelled crew systematically censor people to prevent critical voices from being heard.
3. What christians who accept evolution does the film mention? How?
4. What real research does the ID movement have? When even the leaders admit that there is none, your claim rings hollow.
You did not address my point about how whether Hitler supported it or not is irrelevant to whether evolution is valid or not.
And if you don’t think Stalin is a good commentator of science or politics, what makes you think the Expelled crew are? There are countless outright lies in the film.
“What was contended is that their careers have been pushed toward the toilet because of their support for open discussion of ID.”
Which is obviously nonsense, seeing as lots of scientists question darwinism SCIENTIFICALLY and get away with it because they are doing science and not religion like the ID movement is doing. Read more here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer&page=4
Read under “Questioning Darwinism”.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Sreper…
1a. I know that’s a common assertion, but it’s simply wrong. All I can do is encourage you to read an ID book– for example, Dembski’s Design Revolution (or check out my posting on ID).
1b. Do you understand that Kent Hovind is a young-earth creationist– and that this is not at all equivalent to old-earth creationists or ID’ers? It’s apples and oranges– or, apples and rocks.
3a. I don’t think you read what I wrote. How can a Christian accept a view of Evolution that eliminates God? And I agree that All Christians accept evolution as change within species.
3b. What is your definition of evolution?
April 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
sreper, you start with the assumption that ID is religion which is simply not true. Everything else flows from there. Arguing that they needed to include Christians who believe in evolution was irrelevant to the point of the movie, which is that there is intellectual dishonesty going on in science. The religious background of the adherents of the different views are not relevant.
Censoring critics is not at issue here. Do neo-Darwinists have platforms to criticize ID? Sure. There is no “fairness doctrine” floating around that in a movie exposing a problem that you have to give your opponents free reign. Where were Michael Moore’s critics in all of his movies? Expelled is not a discourse on scientific theories. It is a discourse on what is going on in academic science.
Regarding “real research”, I suspect that you will just argue that any of the projects are just religious because of your assertion that ID is religion. Nevertheless, if you ever learn what it really is, here is a starting place for various projects that have been proposed or research that is going on:
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/ID_research
The Hitler material is showing that there are ethical implication of neo-Darwinism. The link is between Darwinism and the research that Hitler allowed to have done.
The examples given by Scientific American (no longer a non-political journal) are not critiques that challenge the entire presupposition of neo-Darwinism–namely that all species came from a single biological source. Their examples only challenge specific ideas within neo-Darwinism. It is not a matter of science versus religion; it is doctrinal science versus a scientific assertion outside of the accepted doctrine.
Regarding Stalin: Stein is not making broad economic and political arguments in this movie. He is showing how highly credentialed scientists are being persecuted for proposing scientific ideas (or allowing those ideas to be debated) by those with power within the scientific establishment. This is an apples/oranges comparison.