I know that every blogger and his grandmother has had something to say recently about the Ben Stein starred documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but the film is important enough to share a few thoughts for this edition of the Friday Film Focus. You see, dear Into the Hill readers, this film (which is about the debate, or lack thereof, between those who believe in Intelligent Design and those who believe in Evolution) has some wonderful things to say - downright important things to say, in fact - is a really fun cinematic experience, and includes one of the coolest CGI explorations of a cell I have ever seen (I could watch those few minutes again and again and again). However, it also is clearly biased and teeters on the edge of propaganda throughout.
The film begins by discussing the cases of a few college professors who lost their jobs or an opportunity for tenure because they simply mentioned the idea of ID. The scholars are interviewed and allowed to tell their stories. Then the movie progresses on to discuss further anti-ID sentiments and then explores the sciences behind the two theories - though without much depth and really only to suggest that since the science is so complicated surely it must have been created by something “intelligent” which is a viable suggestion only to a certain logical point. The film proceeds to discuss the history behind evolution and even goes into an in depth discussion of the effects of Darwinism and evolutionary thought on men like Hitler and therefore its influence on the Holocaust, which, it suggests, is substantial. The films then ends with a flurry as it compares the Berlin wall with the lack of open and fair discussion in this subject and juxtaposes Ronald Reagan’s “tear down this wall” speech with Ben Stein giving a speech in a University lecture hall (which when you think about it is kind of silly). All this adds up to a very entertaining and fairly informative film that attempts to explore important issues with a great deal of energy and passion.
The problem is that the film’s thesis is that open dialogue should be had by all, that there ought to be fair discussion between proponents of both sides of the creation debate, and yet most of the film is spent trying to disprove Evolution. It doesn’t explore the idea of debate so much as it does attempt to shut down the other side. Now, obviously debate and discussion include rebuttal, that is true, but where are the opening arguments? Where is the presentation of one’s own argument? Essentially, this film spends most of its running time weaving in and out of logical fallacies in what seems to be a desperate attempt to be heard. The film claims again and again that ID is science, and yet offers no scientific proof of this assertion. It resorts to simply trying to disprove the Evolutionary paradigm. This may damage the Evolutionary arguments but it does nothing to prove the ID side. This no more proves ID or the existence of God than it does that you or I or Bob Dylan created the universe (though Dylan may have created my universe). In other words, I can’t prove that I exist simply by proving that you do not exist. I cannot prove that ID is true by proving that Evolution is flawed. It just doesn’t follow (if these are the only two options in the debate and I can prove that Evolution is flat out wrong in all its aspects then I could prove the truth of ID, but that is a different matter altogether). Furthermore, the film doesn’t resort only to science to disprove Evolution. It deals with broad sweeping emotional claims and appeals (like that the science is too complicated for the universe not to have been created by an Intelligent Designer) and resorts to trying to make the Evolutionists look like nit-wits.
Don’t hear me wrong. It is absolutely true that fair and open dialogue should be had by all, and that many who believe in ID are ridiculed, especially in scientific academia. But, in response to that ridicule, Expelled essentially resorts to fighting fire with fire. Those who ridiculed ID believers get ridiculed. Those who ridicule the idea of the existence of God get ridiculed. This is neither good science nor good dialogue.
Let me explain. The film does offer both sides a fair amount of screen time, but it uses the filmic elements to make some questionable rhetorical choices. Much of the time the anti-ID scholars appear on screen they are shown in small, musty looking, cluttered rooms with low, often dark, lighting. On the other hand, the pro-ID scholars are shown in large, spacious rooms filled with lots of natural light, or they are interviewed outside in parks or in hipster coffee shops. In and of itself interviewing a subject with a darkly lit background doesn’t necessarily make a statement, though it is a poor filmmaker indeed who fails to pay attention to what messages his lighting is suggesting. However, juxtaposed as they are the high key and low key lighting does send meaningful message. Dark lighting is the lighting of film-noir and psychological thrillers, of Sunset Boulevard and Se7en. As Jim Piper wrote in his book “Get the Picture,” low key lighting is “about entrapment and hopelessness.”
Furthermore, the film fails to acknowledge the complicated side of the debate that suggests that perhaps the evolutionary process and ID could actually co-exist. Many Christians today believe this and the film does not address this paradigm at all. Stein and Co. attempt to paint a black and white picture of an issue that contains far too much gray area to be simplified to so great an extent. It does try, at one point, to make a distinction between evolution as a process by which the natural world changes (which is clearly true) and the idea of evolution as a way that the universe began. It points out that many Evolutionary scientists say that they don’t know how the universe began but that the science behind ID is flawed. The film does not give this argument much credence and certainly does not allow it’s premises to be set forth. In it’s own way, based on the foundational paradigm upon which it is built, this is a valid belief and one that ought to be entered into the public discussion. In fact, this is a brave belief, in many ways. It takes great courage to admit that you have no idea where life came from or where it will eventually go.
Now, for the sake of clarification, I must acknowledge that I stand on the side of the ID believers. So, this is not a bitter review from someone who was offended deeply by how the film discussed evolution. However, as someone who is in favor of solid debate and respectful discussion I am offended at the tone this film takes. I fear that it may actually set back any progress that has been made toward the possibility of good debate. We must, when we are debating, attempt to treat our opposition with respect. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed does not do this, as the title suggests. In fact, as I watched the film and was entertained by the fantastic editing, the hip music, the hilarious cut-ins and montages of old stock footage, and by Ben Steins dead pan humor, I couldn’t help but feel like Stein and Co. made the whole thing with a bit of a chuckle and tongue firmly planted in cheek. Most of the scenes where they interviewed the Evolutionists seemed to be filled with a sense of “wow this guy is an idiot, how could anyone believe anything so stupid!” This is concerning and I fear that many Christians and ID-backers will see this movie and take that attitude to the streets, especially as school age kids and youth groups see the film. In exploring the issues in the film, it is important that we seek to clearly discern what is truth and what is merely propaganda. It is important that we engage in this debate with grace and respect. And it is important that we seek truth above all else. And what is that truth? Well, let’s enter the debate and attempt to find out.
****
One final thing. It is important to understand that this film is not necessarily a Pro-Christianity film. It does seem to be pro-God or at least Anti people who don’t believe in God, but it does not try to prove the truth of the Bible or the validity of the Christian Faith and so it should not be taken as such.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
Hey David! Great review. I’ve seen the movie twice, and it does have some important things to say, and I think the connections it makes are something we need to keep in the back of our minds (i.e. Hitler, etc.). But you are right, it does fight fire with fire, which as you stately more eloquently that I could, is the most unloving thing a Christian can do. But I think a Christian could use this film to bring up some great dialogue, and hopefully this film will help the cause, and stir people to become more knowledgeable and aware of this topic.
andrew webb
May 5th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
This is the part of the ID argument that is disingenuous. “It’s also true that the theory lends itself to justify atheism, abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics” –as Stein points out. Here is another quote from Mr. Stein, “Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people- Quote from Ben Stein.
Basically, Expelled tarnishes all Darwinist and evolutionists as maniacal murderers responsible for the worst atrocities of man. Linking Hitler and Darwinism is basically a specious argument, after all how many Christian Germans prayed to God that Hitler would triumph? Should we equate Christianity with the Nazis too? That’s stupid and simplistic, right? Or do we just ignore the previous two thousand years of anti-Semitism in Europe and assume it had it had no impact on the holocaust or do we blame all Christians for the camps? Again, that’s a simplistic answer.
To quote the Anti-Defamation League: “The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”
By the way I agree that you can be a Christian and a Darwinist, too. To me, one is science and the other is faith and they each have their place in life, one in a class room, the other in a church. If ID is truly a valid scientific theory then win the debate within the scientific journals not in the court of public opinion (and please don’t give me that nonsense that the ID proponents lost their jobs, that was basically a Michael Moore liberty if I ever saw one.) To date, the arguments of irreducible complexity are not enough to allow ID to stand as a valid scientific theory. And even if it was what can you do with it as theory? What predictive models will come from ID other than to ask us to marvel at god’s handiwork?
Here’s a quote from my http://www.millenniumwriting.com site that Jason provided from St. Augustine:
“For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]“
Erik John Bertel
Author of Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot
May 13th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
David,
I disagree. I found no problem with the films tongue in cheek mood. Such a wry sentiment toward arrogance is fun, fun because it’s due. The purpose of the film is not to promote and teach, but to expose the stifling sneaker squishing the ID. Where it is not necessary that a Holocaust result from a non-ID starting point, the Nietzsche-ian dead God, or a no-God starting point is certainly valid without it. I enjoyed the push back. I found the absurdity of humor consistent and consistently funny.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Riley,
I still think that the primary thesis the film suggests it is trying to make is that open dialogue should be, nay, must be, had by all regarding ID. However, they don’t really address how this should be done throughout the film, they simply attempt to negate the theories of evolution and ridicule the people who believe in it. They don’t offer solutions to the problem they say exists.
Furthermore, the film is much to simplistic. As I said in my review, it fails to address important issues like people who believe in Creationism and evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive; to believe in creationism does not mean that one does not believe in any of the theories of evolution.
Moreover, the film essentially dwindles into an unconvincing attempt at disproving the idea that there is no God: a backwards way of saying there is a God. And to prove that Richard Dawkins was an idiot doesn’t go very far in proving any of that.
If you look closely and do your research you will find that a fair amount of the info they offer in the film, especially regarding the supposed plights of the ID backers, simply is incorrect. Some of what they report about how those people suffered seems to have been exaggerated.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I still think the thesis was about the lack (”No Intelligence”) of “allowance.” If that’s the case, any and all pokes are valid without supporting the proofs of the ID –should there be any, which I believe there are.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
David, I just read you for the first time. As Riley aptly pointed out, the thesis of the film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is that the scientific community does not tolerate open debate of origins and punishes those it finds harboring such beliefs even when unexpressed. The clear purpose of the film was to wake up society to the reality of, and to attempt to hasten the end of, the pervasive persecution of Intelligent Design (ID) adherents and the pervasive denigration of their valid faith position. To state it another way, the film’s message is to allow Intelligent Design a respectful hearing, not once or twice, but everyday everywhere and especially within education, science and the public square.
The totalitarian ideological status that neo-darwinism, a faith position, enjoys in the majority of our institutions is inversely proportional to its plausibility and evidential support, this is my opinion, but not far from the film’s expression.
Having seen this film twice, first alone, then again with my dear wife, I feel somewhat qualified to comment on its contents. Reading your review I enjoyed it until I reached the last sentence of your initial paragraph. It reads: “However, it [Expelled] also is clearly biased and teeters on the edge of propaganda throughout.” While your statement could be thought to be valid and many may defend it as such. It comes across as a panning of the movie, which I believe is an unfair appraisal of its merit. The fallacy employed whether by design or accident is called ‘damning with faint praise’.
You imply by use of the loaded terms “biased” and “propaganda” that the film is based on unproven and undocumented source material, a besmirching without substance. These terms connotate misinformation, disinformation and malice, none of these would seem to be fairly understood to be a part of this film. These two words, in there denotations, are rightly applied to much, if not most, art , the purely aesthetic would be a prime exception.
Stein’s film is correctly termed ‘propaganda’ in the best sense of the word because it involves the “dissemination of ideas, [and] information…for the purpose of helping [intelligent design] or injuring an institution, or a cause [neo-darwinism]…” Your later comparison of the movie to works of Michael Moore is a fallacy. You cite no explicit similarities invalidating the claim. In my estimation ‘Expelled’ is on a much higher artistic and intellectual plane than anything of Michael Moore’s which I have seen. Since you give no specifics to validate the generalization it seems to be an intentional, undeserved smear.
Honest, well-read, discerning individuals could not judge this movie harshly. It expressly was intended as propaganda in the best sense of the term. Mr. Stein was up front about his motives and methods. He was advocating for fair and respectful treatment of his life-long view that we live in a created universe not an accidental one. He was so meticulously clear about his motivations, his charity and his tolerance that it seems impossible that you actually saw this film in its entirety without distraction.
Did you miss Stein’s open acknowledgment of unavoidable bias, and his disclaimer at some length as an avowed traditional monotheist, and a non-Christian? Therefore, your usage of the loaded terms “biased” and “propaganda” seem to unfairly pan this noble and necessary work. My appraisal of the film is that it is both educational and entertaining. And, it is legitimate in its content and approach, and worthy of viewing by every American school child of sufficient age. I believe that every adult should see this film.
Being a scholarly film critic, as one would infer from the official description of your role on this site, we all should pardon you for your apparent inadequacies in formal logic skills and ignorance of the science of theology. Yes, classical western thought considers theology the king of the sciences. And theology fits the definition of modern usage of the word ’science’. Your assertion that Stein committed many fallacies in his film is far from proving the same. Saying does not make a thing so! Logical fallacies have names. You fail to specify a single instance of any specific fallacy. While Stein’s film was careful to define key terms like ‘intelligent design’, ‘evolution’ and ‘neo-darwinism’ your review is very careless in its use of ‘evolution’ and ‘ID’ and totally omits ‘neo-darwinism’ the oft used word for the movie’s arch villain.
David if I may critique your critique, it would seem that you are defending an untenable proposition that “science” has proven “evolution”. Of course it all depends what you mean by your undefined terms. Your film critique labors under the fallacy of undefined terms of which the film warned. On the other hand, while you assert without proof the commission of many fallacies within the film ,you have commited many noted fallacies yourself and others yet.
Do we agree that theories by definition are not provable? If we do it follows that Evolution cannot be demonstrated to be true. Nor, can holders of ID prove the correctness of their theory, per se. The film made the assertion to which I agree, that the scientific evidence leads more toward an intellectually honest embrace of intelligent design than to that of macro evolutionary origins. Yet we suffer under totalitarian like dominance of evolutionary theory in our education systems and scientific communities and public policy debate.
In my humble opinion the film proved its point resoundingly, through its several examples of scientists who were fired, laid off, denied tenure and otherwise ostracized. Further prove was provided by evolutionary scientists who expressed no tolerance for ID within science or the public sphere and animus or other disregard for all who embrace ID.
Without sharing a factual basis you claim that the individuals did not suffer real harm. That by definition merits the use of propaganda in its worst sense. You are dealing in rumor and bald assertion, not the method of scholars. The pretense that you have debunked any one of the cases presented in the movie is certainly an argument from silence as you gave no proof for your unfounded claim. The argument from silence is a fallacy.
I suggest that you go see the film again. I saw it twice opening weekend to do my part to ensure it had a long run. Despite its early success it has largely disappeared from the market. Hmm? Might there be some undue pressure involved? Now, my three adult children who I encouraged to go out and see it have been unable to find the film available in their locals.
You clearly are intelligent and educated. But why dump on Mr. Stein or his movie? Did he step on your toes?
I apologize for sounding like someone’s father or grandfather, which I am. Those are two of my most cherished roles, which I am pleased to have achieved by God’s grace. I found your blog was linked on the blog of a loved one. With a click here and a click there, I found myself reading with interest your film review of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”.
Your review demonstrates that you did not see the forest for the trees. Which at one time was understood by any well-educated people to be a major fallacy.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
ptmcixrdo2okbn1k