Thursday, February 07, 2008

Expelled

Last month, I was able to watch a screening of Ben Stein’s upcoming movie, Expelled (http://www.getexpelled.com/). Stein was there at the presentation too, so I got to sit through a little Q&A with him. At the time, all viewers had to sign a confidentiality agreement that precluded us from writing reviews about the movie. That restriction was lifted yesterday, however, so today I bring you my review of Expelled.

For those who know absolutely nothing about the film, Expelled is Stein’s look at Intelligent Design and the way that ID proponents are expelled from the "academy" via academic censorship. The basic goal of the film is to publicize the fact that there are professors who question Darwinistic dogma who are then censured for it, who cannot get tenure, who are fired from their jobs, etc. Therefore, on a broad issue, the film is designed simply to publicize the suppression of free-thought by Darwinists and not to provide an apologetic for ID as such.

Since I knew this was the motivation, I watched the film intentionally thinking of what Darwinists would say in response to it. Because of that, when I watched it I found the movie does have some weaknesses. The main drawback to it from the intellectual standpoint is that it relied on a heavy emotional link to Social Darwinism, especially manifest by Hitler’s Darwinism; thus the "intellectual" Darwinist will most certainly respond: "It's nothing but emotive propaganda with no substance" (which isn't true, but the emotive aspect was emphasized enough that it did sometimes feel that way even to this ID proponent).

By the way, I should also point out that I don't think it's bad in and of itself for the movie to play on the Social Darwinistic evils that have come about; atheists harp on the Crusades enough that they deserve this. And frankly most people are unaware of the links between Eugenics and Darwinism and Planned Parenthood, which are also mentioned in the film along with Hitler and the Communists.

Throughout the film is the metaphor of the Berlin Wall, and Stein ends the film by paralleling Reagan's famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" speech. The attempt is to get people to know the wall exists so that others will be able to work at chipping it away. The rallying cry is: "We need academic freedom, and that includes the freedom to believe contra-Darwin about origins of life." I do believe the film captures this goal, and so it succeeds at what it attempts to do.

So to review it, it definitely would get a solid A in my book. And while the movie is only 97 minutes long in the form I saw, Stein told us the DVD is going to have tons more footage and extra features in it, including what will probably become one of the most famous Dawkins interviews, at least for the IDers.

In fact, that interview remains the most memorable portion of the film if, for no other reason, than the fact that I have read so much of Dawkins materials beforehand. Stein had Dawkins looking absolutely flummoxed. During Stein’s interview, Dawkins stated that it was impossible that there is an Intelligent Designer. Stein asked him for a percentage on how sure he is of that idea. Dawkins refuses to give an exact number, then finally decided on 99%. Stein asked: "Couldn't it be 49% instead?" Dawkins responded with his typical: "No, the probability of a designer is nowhere near half" etc. Then, Stein pressed Dawkins on how the first cell was created, and in the end Dawkins actually acknowledged that he could accept the theory of panspermia (aliens did it). Everyone in the theater laughed, because after just saying it was impossible for intelligent design to have created life on Earth, Dawkins admits that aliens that were "more intellectually advanced than we are" (as close to a direct quote as I can recall from memory of something I saw only once) could have done it after all.

As a funny aside, one of the questions Stein was asked during our forum was: "Do you think you treated Dawkins fairly in the movie?" To which Stein responded (accurately, as those of you who have read Dawkins already know): "I think we treated him charitably. There were many hostile responses he gave that we edited out, where his response was basically, 'I'm Richard Dawkins and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm Richard Dawkins!'" It remains to be seen how much of the entire interview will be in the DVD version of the film.

Naturally, this film will not convince any Darwinist to look at ID...but then, no film could do that. It will hopefully be enough to pry open the door a bit for some so that others can come along with more detailed explanations in the future.

10 comments:

  1. You can't call this suppression of free thought. What would you think if serious medical research were forced to put up with timewasters who believed in voodoo and casting the runes? Why is it too much to ask that IDers must quantify or show some empirical evidence for their theories. So far as I know, there's 1 guy (Dembski) whose tried to make any sort of case for this, and he hasn't been too successful by the look of things. Behe was laughed off the stage at his trial, and his flagella arguments soundly refuted.

    Why is it too much to ask that IDers mount an actual case for their theories before they start yowling about persecution and censorship?

    But at least you recognize that making emotional appeals has nothing to do with the truth value of either claim. That's a step in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous said:
    ---
    You can't call this suppression of free thought.
    ---

    So when did you see the movie?

    Anonymous said:
    ---
    What would you think if serious medical research were forced to put up with timewasters who believed in voodoo and casting the runes?
    ---

    This is disanologous. Darwinism isn't medical research.

    Anonymous said:
    ---
    Why is it too much to ask that IDers must quantify or show some empirical evidence for their theories.
    ---

    A) I ask the same of Darwinism.

    B) IDers have provided evidence.

    C) If Darwinism was so solidly proven, why are Darwinists afraid to let opposing views be heard?

    After all, you claim: "Behe was laughed off the stage at his trial, and his flagella arguments soundly refuted." If this is really true then you ought to be able to demonstrate it easily enough. You ought to be glad that IDers exist because it makes your job that much easier. If their arguments are really as poor as you make them out to be, then Darwinism has nothing to fear, right?

    Anonymous said:
    ---
    Why is it too much to ask that IDers mount an actual case for their theories before they start yowling about persecution and censorship?
    ---

    Why is it that you care so little about academic freedom? Again, if ID was nuts, Darwinists have nothing to fear. It is precisely because ID is a powerful alternative to Darwinism that professors have to be denied tenure.

    You said:
    ---
    But at least you recognize that making emotional appeals has nothing to do with the truth value of either claim. That's a step in the right direction.
    ---

    Yes, and let me teach you step number two. Present facts with your assertions. (I.e. you claim that Behe's flagella arguments were "soundly refuted"--prove it.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Did Stein present his creation/ID theory or did he just attack the evolution? Also, did Stein present any benefits or achievement what creation/ID has contributed to the society?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Peter (not me) said:
    ---
    Did Stein present his creation/ID theory or did he just attack the evolution?
    ---

    Apparently you missed the part of my review where I wrote: "Therefore, on a broad issue, the film is designed simply to publicize the suppression of free-thought by Darwinists and not to provide an apologetic for ID as such." This movie isn't about ID so much as it's about the intollerance of Darwinists to allow anyone to disagree with their orthodoxy.

    Peter (not me) said:
    ---
    Also, did Stein present any benefits or achievement what creation/ID has contributed to the society?
    ---

    Again, this is irrelevant to the purpose of the movie. However, it brings to mind a certain question. In what way has Darwinism "contributed" to society? I mean other than Social Darwinists, Eugenics, school shooters, ethnic cleansing (for the survival of the "fittest"), the devaluation of human life....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Exactly who was invited to this private screening? I'd love to ask Ben Stein a couple of questions myself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scripto asked:
    ---
    Exactly who was invited to this private screening?
    ---

    It was organized by the company I work for, which is a non-profit. (Since I'm not in any way a spokesman for them, I won't mention their name.)

    As to contacting Stein, here's the what they said in their e-mail:

    "We can arrange interviews with Logan Craft, Walt Ruloff, and Mark Mathis (Producers), and possibly Ben Stein (Ben’s time is very limited though). Lesley Burbridge-Bates is handling our publicity and can be reached at Lesley@motivemarketing.biz" There might be more information available at their website too (www.getexpelled.com)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the review, Peter. That's interesting about Dawkins. This isn't the first time I've heard of him making a poor show of it. We have it reported now that he has heard the gospel, so he should have no excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, you've got at least a couple hurdles to clear with Intelligent Design: (1) evolution deals with physical objects (organisms), whereas ID concerns itself with "design". A design is a concept, a plan. The question remains, How did the design become implemented in matter?
    That is, by what mechanism was the design translated into atoms and molecules? Can you say, Magic? And THAT should be taught in science classes?

    (2) Specified complexity? Well, it seems to me that for a molecule manufactured by a plant to be engineered so as to pass through the blood-brain barrier and bond onto specific receptor sites on human neurons suggests that the DESIGNER intends for humans to use plant drugs. Marijuana. Cocaine. Opium. ALL are products of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. ID is a pro-dope position. To imprison dopers is an affront to God.

    Or, you can find the GOOD WORD HERE

    ReplyDelete
  9. Heresiarch said:
    ---
    Well, you've got at least a couple hurdles to clear with Intelligent Design: (1) evolution deals with physical objects (organisms), whereas ID concerns itself with "design". A design is a concept, a plan. The question remains, How did the design become implemented in matter?
    ---

    In other words, there is a dead body in a hotel room and that dead body is a physical object. We know that living bodies die all the time. Therefore, we can ignore the multiple stab wounds which indicate there was a design to the death and just assume it was a natural, physical death. Because looking for design is just looking for the plan and the motive in the death. Totally irrelevant to science, obviously.

    You said:
    ---
    That is, by what mechanism was the design translated into atoms and molecules? Can you say, Magic?
    ---

    No one says "Magic" did it. Thanks for playing. You can get your parting gift at the door.

    You said:
    ---
    Specified complexity? Well, it seems to me that for a molecule manufactured by a plant to be engineered so as to pass through the blood-brain barrier and bond onto specific receptor sites on human neurons suggests that the DESIGNER intends for humans to use plant drugs. Marijuana. Cocaine. Opium. ALL are products of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. ID is a pro-dope position. To imprison dopers is an affront to God.
    ---

    Which is of course a fallacious argument. A tire iron can be used as a murder weapon, but that doesn't mean it was designed as a murder weapon. It was designed to take lug nuts off of tires. And just because drugs can get people high doesn't mean that was the intent of why God created these plants. In case you didn't know, there are medicinal uses for most of those plants (marijuana, opium, and cocaine have all been used as medicines). That they are misused does not imply their misuse was what was originally designed.

    Again, thanks for playing....

    ReplyDelete
  10. "In other words, there is a dead body in a hotel room and that dead body is a physical object. We know that living bodies die all the time. Therefore, we can ignore the multiple stab wounds which indicate there was a design to the death and just assume it was a natural, physical death. Because looking for design is just looking for the plan and the motive in the death. Totally irrelevant to science, obviously.


    The conclusion that this is not a natural death is based on prior knowlege of process (the stabbing)and agency (a human being). How does this relate to diversity in biology when knowlege of potential processes is incomplete? Intelligent Design needs to posit some mechanisms or even a defined design event for it to stand toe to toe with evolutionary biology. If evolution posits some mechanisms (natural selection, gentic drift, etc.) and a timeline ID is obligated to do the same. Otherwise you can't begin to assess which explanation is more likely. They are not even in the same field of study.

    "No one says "Magic" did it.

    Oh, what did?

    ReplyDelete