Title: Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed
from: Ben Stein
While reading another blog, I saw this movie recommended. I was happy to find it at our library and have it put on hold, and today I finally sat down and watched it with Eldest.
First, my expectation. I didn't really know what the movie's subject was specifically, though I noticed it had two very negative reviews on our library website - one actually chastising the library for having it at all, and how they shouldn't have it available, while the other mocked it. I got the impression, however, that neither commenter had actually seen the movie.
When I saw the dvd cover, I thought it might be a sort of mockumentary. It has Ben Stein in a suit with his collar popped up, short pants, knee high black socks and running shoes, spray painting the X into the word "expelled" with "No intelligence allowed" made to look like it had been spray painted onto a brick wall as graffiti. I knew by then that it tackled the Intelligent Design controversy and had an idea that it was going to point out the hypocrisy of not allowing ID to be taught.
Just a bit of a background on my own views. Having been educated in the public school system, I was taught evolution. In fact, I came out of school believing that Darwinian evolution was it. Basically, evolution = Darwin, Darwin = evolution. It really wasn't discussed a lot, but Darwinian evolution was treated as a truism. As a Christian, I have never had a problem meshing faith with evolution and found it rather frustrating when people automatically assumed creationism equalled young earth beliefs; that all Christians believed the universe, the earth and everything on it was created in seven 24 hour days (actually 6 days, since the 7th day was a day of rest). The word "day" has never meant only 24 hours, but is often used as a metaphor for other lengths of time, both in modern language use and in the Bible. The general definition of evolution is gradual change over time, which I didn't see as conflicting with belief in God. This is actually more common an interpretation among Christians than the belief of six 24 hour days (I don't even like to call that view a "literal" interpretation, since I don't find it literal at all. The Bible doesn't actually deal with time all that much).
Recently, however, Eldest developed an interest in evolution and began investigating the field herself. It's probably a good thing she never turned to me for answers, as I wouldn't have had much to tell her other than what Darwin's theory was - or at least what I'd been taught it was. This meant that she explored the theory in much greater depth than I ever had the opportunity to do in school. As always, we discuss the things the girls study, and this lead to my own increased interest in the field. I was shocked to find out that what I had been taught as Darwin's theory of evolution was actually an amalgamation of his original theory (which, it turns out, had been disproven during his own lifetime, though he certainly never accepted that) and mutationism, which after the discovery of genes went on to form neo-Darwinism, aka the synthetic theory. Since then we've discussed other theories, which I'd love to link to. However my brief searches for different or alternative theories of evolution, I've been finding a lot of Darwin and mutationism vs creationism as contradictory concepts. Eventually, there are references to ID and, not surprisingly, the majority of the sites I'm finding disparage both creationism and ID. Eldest has been finding her sources through old fashioned books, and finds the symbiotic theory particularly promising. It should be noted that neo-Darwin dogma is largely limited to the US and Canada - other countries have little problem examining other theories as being far better explanations for evolution.
At the moment, Eldest is reading Moral Darwinism. I'm reading Shattering the Darwin Myth, which has been a fascinating read and one I highly recommend. I never thought I'd find reading about uranium/lead and potassium/argon dating techniques to be quite so interesting!
As we've been studying the subject, I've become increasingly frustrated, and sometimes angered, by the shoddiness and dishonesty within the scientific community. Like many, I had this image of "science" as being filled with people who strove to understand the complexities of the world around us; people who's ultimate standard was to follow where the evidence lead them, with a willingness to change their minds if something appeared that contradicted previous beliefs. I imagined people willing to discuss, even argue, various points, all with the ultimate goal of increasing knowledge and finding the truth.
I first got an inkling of how wrong that notion was when I read The First Americans, which described the problems of ego, status and emotional outbursts within the archaeological community. Then I began researching the science behind
I've become incredibly cynical about scientific claims in general but, like the theories of anthropogenic global warming, I was particularly disturbed by what I was seeing outside the scientific community. Darwin has surged in popularity lately, and questioning neo-Darwinian dogma (most of the people supporting Darwinism don't even realize they're actually supporting neo-Darwinism) resulted in the most amazing, emotional responses. It's been astonishing to see.
With this background, I suspected that I would like this movie. I was totally unprepared for what I actually saw.
Right from the start, we were impressed by the quality of the movie. The opening credits were truly well done. Yes, the opening credits. The movie hadn't even started, and we already liked it.
My expectations for a mockumentary were quickly proven wrong. This was a serious movie. Stein began by talking to various academics - scientists of note and accomplishment - and even reporters who found their careers at an end just for mentioning ID. They didn't necessarily believe in ID but, as in the case of a reporter, refused to be anything but neutral on the subject. What ID is - and isn't (it is NOT creationism, by the way, in any way, and supporters of ID include people of various religions as well as atheists and agnostics) is defined.
Stein also talks to opponents of ID. The difference between the two is quite striking. Where people working in the ID field repeatedly stated that all they wanted to be able to do is be allowed to have an open discussion and be able to follow the evidence where it lead them, opponents vociferously attacked opposing views and those who held them.
As the movie progressed, things shifted somewhat as Stein explored the idea of what could be the result if we just went along with the consensus of neo-Darwinism; if we agreed with the Darwinists (who were all staunch atheists, with some, like Richard Dawkins, actively attacking religion and belief in God, determined to define supporters of ID as being creationists), how could this be bad? Stein answers this question by looking to history, and of what science's social Darwinism lead to. He gave only a couple of examples, but off the top of my head, I could give several more. I won't cover it in detail here. See the movie. Seriously. You need to see this movie.
The movie does end in a lighter note, and Stein gets to interview Dawkins in person. As I've seen in several other interviews with Dawkins, he gets owned. Badly. It was laughable, really. When confronted with the question of "what causes life to happen" (and again, see the movie to understand the context of how that question is asked), the followers of ID were very clear. We don't know. They didn't quibble or try to come up with something. They didn't know and weren't going to pretend they did. Darwinists, however, gave answers liked molecules piggy-backing on crystals and even panspermia. No, not the "microbes from space" version. The aliens version. That's right. God or some creator couldn't have had anything to do with the creation of life and evolution, but aliens! That's much more plausible.
In fact, when forced into a corner about the question, Dawkins himself actually said that, theoretically, it is possible that life on earth may have been seeded by some super intelligent race - but that if it was, that race had to have come into being through Darwinian evolution.
Yes, you read that right. Dawkins would rather suggest the possibility of aliens of great intelligence designing life on earth, than entertain the possibility of the existence of a god of any kind.
I suppose this should not come as a surprise, since this is the same person who suggested that it's more theoretically plausible for the atoms in the arm of a statue to spontaneously vibrate all in one direction, then immediately vibrate in the opposite direction, thereby causing the statue to wave, than the possibility that, if a statue suddenly waved, it could be a God directed miracle.
I must say, the more I hear and see of Dawkins, the more I think he's a fool. An intelligent fool, perhaps, but so dogmatic in his beliefs, he's an embarrassment to himself.
The movie started with Ben Stein going onto a stage to give a lecture. It ends with his closing remarks of that lecture. Remarks that had the audience give him a standing ovation.
The entire movie was really well done and, at times, quite moving. Whether or not one agrees with ID, the core notion of his movie - that science must allow academic freedom, including the freedom to hold such controversial ideas as ID, to thrive. He demonstrates how that freedom no longer exists in the sciences. The dogmatism that has replaced it is harmful not only to science, but to all of us not in the sciences as well.
I look forward to watching this movie again, and make sure that I watch the extras, too.
Now that I've seen the movie, I find the negative, censorious comments left at our library website about it far more disturbing. Whatever your opinions of ID, if you respect scientific integrity, this is an important movie to see.
