Ben Stein’s Expelled :: Movie Review
Thanks to our own Tim Schmitt for contributing the following review.
When I was told that Ben Stein had made a new movie, I wondered if the spin off movie trend had finally hit “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off “and had earned Ben Stein’s character a movie of his own (Bueller, Bueller….). I can thankfully report that this is not the case. Ben Stein’s new movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, is documentary about the retaliation that is taken against the scientists who support the intelligent design theory and how the discussion around intelligent design is suppressed by the scientific community.
The first part of the movie focuses on proving that scientists who support the intelligentdesign theory in their professions are systematically squeezed out of their positions or pressured to change their views to conform to the mainstream positions. There are about 5 scientists who give their accounts about how they supported intelligent design and the resulting conditions which led to their dismissal. Although it’s difficult to prove that the underlying reason each person lost their job was related to their support for intelligent design, the individual stories were compelling and believable. The end result is a convincing case that intelligent design is not accepted within the scientific community and that people have lost their positions in academic institutions over their beliefs on the subject. Ben uses these cases to demonstrate that although science is based on the sharing ideas and theories, the scientific community seems to suppress the intelligent design discussion by disciplining those who support it.
The second part of the movie is a discussion with people on both sides of the intelligent design and evolution debate. Several video clips are woven together into a discussion which covers topics ranging from how some evolutionists explain the origin of life to thoughts on why the scientific community seems to suppress the intelligent design discussion. The people representing the intelligent design position were thoughtful and clearly knowledgeable on the topic, which was a nice contrast to how proponents of intelligent design are typically portrayed in the media.
There were a few aspects of the movie that I did not agree with. For example, in between many of the interviews, the movie would stop and a humorous clip that pertains to the previous segment would be played with the intent of poking fun at the answer which was just given. For example, after one of the scientists gives a half hearted explanation for the origins of life, the movies cuts to the scene of the Dorothy discovering the wizard of OZ is just a man behind a curtain. The clips are sometimes humorous but they detracted from the seriousness of the topic and seem undermine what could have been a sincere discussion of the topic.
Secondly, the movie attempts to link Nazis and evolutionists together by demonstrating that the “survival of the fittest” concept was the root motivation for the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in Word War II. While it is true eugenics was part of the Nazi’s motivation, I’m not sure you can suggest that the people who support the theory of evolution today would take the “survival of the fittest” concept to the same extreme that the Nazis did.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed demonstrates the bias against intelligent design in the scientific community but could have done better job proving their case by reviewing more of the evidence for intelligent design and taking a more serious approach to the debate. If you are interested in learning more about intelligent design, I would recommend seeing the movie. Tim
Benjamin Franklin said,
April 25, 2008 at 11:24 am
Do you have an idea why ID has been looked at and reviewed repeatedly by the scientific community, but is not seriously considered?
alleychurch said,
April 25, 2008 at 11:37 am
@ Benjamin. I’ll do my best to be brief. Historically, the idea of an intelligent designer has been the prominent view of science. The current main stream of modern science has separated itself from it.
To answer your question directly, I don’t know why they don’t take it seriously. The fact that they don’t is what makes me question their science. Science is at it ’s core observation + interpretation.
For some reason main stream science has latched onto one particular ideology of interpretation and considers anything else a ridiculous assumption.
Not only that, but in a scientific world, supposedly focused on logic there is a very strong emotional response to the idea of a creator, intelligent designer or God. Where does the root of that emotion come from and what is the fear of looking at the same observed things and asking questions like, “Could there have been a cause or factor outside of nature?”
The amazing complexity of molecular machines, the “design” of all things and life itself beg us to ask that question.
Pauli Ojala said,
April 25, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I wish an analogous documentary film should also be made concerning the DINOGLYFS or dinolits:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say).
Bruce Albers it was who first accepted from his post as the president of the National Academy of Sciences USA that the biological machinery can be called as such, machinery, without asserting to metaphora. He gave the students that license in 1998. Other animations on the tiny cellular machineries apart from the Expelled movie can be seen in here:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Videos_animations_flagella_evidence_existence_creation_contra_evolution.htm
Anyway: It is interesting that it is the People of the Book who once more are the initiative spectators who have the balls to question the ambient amen and go against the loudy majority. Not the first time. Here’s some statistics and charts regarding the success of the Jews in science and technological innovations when the others were too stubborn to see things in any history of science perspective:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Indicator.html
pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, Finland
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm
John the Skeptic said,
April 25, 2008 at 1:53 pm
You’ve just found the answer to your question. Science, as a foundational matter, deals only with finding natural explanations to natural phenomena. Science, specifically Methodological Naturalism, does not claim that supernatural phenomena do not exist, or that supernatural explanations for observed phenomena are wrong–these things are simply not part of science.
alleychurch said,
April 25, 2008 at 2:59 pm
@ John
Isn’t it foundational to science to ask those questions? By limiting our findings to only natural explanations haven’t you predetermined that your observations of things must fit into a certain category.
I’m perfectly fine with theory and conjecture but struggle with being told that deductions made from men’s predetermined interpretations are fact. Just a little over 500 years ago, the idea that the world was flat was considered to be “fact” based on observation and the current day’s interpretation. We now have a bigger and grander view and know that not to be the case.
Why can’t we at least consider the possibility that there is a power, dare I say a God, that operates outside of the natural world and yet affects it? Or at the least theorize that there are forces outside of what we know to be natural that could and do affect nature. Those kind of questions and explorations are a logical and integral part of science.
Benjamin Franklin said,
April 25, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I would agree with John in his explanation, perhaps the best answer to the question “what is science?” was answered by Ken Miller (have you read his book “Finding Darwins God?)
Miller said
“Science is the systematic attempt to provide natural explanations for natural phenomena”
ID, by definition, proposes a supernatural explanation. Now, this is not saying that ID is right, or wrong, good or bad, possible, or impossible. It just falls outside the realm of science. It’s not that the scientific community considers ID ridiculous, (although, like all things, some individuals, like Dawkins, do – thats why they featured him in the movie!) Its just that it is outside of what science does.
But you feel, and the movie tries to make us believe that the scientific community seems to suppress the intelligent design discussion by disciplining those who support it.
This is where I take issue with the movie, because this is clearly not the case. Expelled’s claims are way, way, way overblown. It great that you felt that the people in the movie were believeable, but as you intimated, there is a whole other side to their stories. For example, Richard von Sternberg was never fired, as claimed in the movie. If you want proof, look at the Smithsonian website where he is still listed as a researcher, which he still is. He also was never fired as editor of the magazine referenced in Expelled, he announced that he would step down at the end of his term six months before the article was published. It had nothing to do with suppression.
But I am not the only one who takes issue with the way Expelled makes it out to be some vast conspiracy to suppress anyone who mentions ID, This is what the scholars at Reasons to Believe have to say-
“In Reasons To Believe’s interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.
Our main concern about EXPELLED is that it paints a distorted picture. It certainly doesn’t match our experience. ”
These seem to be very different views of the same playing field, and Reasons To Beleive certainly are not atheists like Dawkins. Who is right?
The deeper you look, the more you find out about the other people brought to light in Expelled like Carolyn Crocker (the Biology teacher at George Mason U), Gonzalez (the astronomer at ISU) Marks (the guy with the ID website) and the reporter ( I forgot her name), You will see that
1- Expelled (as you suspected) told only their side of the story.
2- These are really isolated instances.
3- Their lives nor their careers were ruined.
Classes on ID are taught at over 100 universities. But they are not taught as science classes, they are taught as philosophy.
Major ID proponents like Behe, Dembski, Meyers and many, many more publish books, teach at Universities, maintain websites, give lectures – all without silencing, or oppression.
Would you like more inforation on this?
Jon said,
April 25, 2008 at 6:14 pm
In terms of how well science can be used for determining “truth” I think that Thomas Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” provides a nice window for looking into the scientific community and how science moves forward over time. This process is quite human and sociological. It is not objective. Since the publication of his book in the 1960’s, individuals like Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend have written many pages in debate over what consitutes scientific inquiry. Feyerabend’s major works include Against Method (published in 1975), Science in a Free Society (published in 1978) and Farewell to Reason (a collection of papers published in 1987). Feyerabend became famous for his purportedly anarchistic view of science and his rejection of the existence of universal methodological rules. He is an influential figure in the philosophy of science, and also in the sociology of scientific knowledge. As this debate over science rages on, science has become exposed to the point that one must acknowledge that science is a way to communicate information and ideas. However, to hold that science somehow provides the answers to understanding the universe is not wise in my opinion. I am a Ph.D. scientist and use selected scientific methods for investigating research problems and communicating my findings to others. I realize that my theroies and methods will be old-fashioned and out-dated in less that 100 years. It is humbling to think that what I devote my professional energy to now will be shown to be useless within 100 years in light of better theories and methods. However, science is a useful communication tool to help frame questions, describe phenomena, and make predictions. I do not think that the theories and methods I currently use are prefect. Science is a struggle. It will never reach perfect understanding. When it comes to understanding the origin of all things ….. let’s pause a moment and think about how little we know…. we can’t even detect all the things that exist, let alone explain their origin. Can you imagine what scientists will think about our explanations 100 years from now, 500 years from now, 10,000 years from now? When it comes to studying phenomena and communicating my findings, science is great. However, when it comes to establishing conclusive truth, science falls short. Statements of truth require more than science … they require faith.
Tim said,
April 25, 2008 at 6:54 pm
If the movie says nothing else, it’s that people should look at the evidence and make decisions for themselves. When you go see the movie, think about and research the claims being made and decide if the claims are truthful. Do some investigation and read about what each side says. If nothing else, Expelled will trigger people to dig deeper into the topics.
That being said, Expelled did allow a handful of scientists to tell their stories from their perspectives and each claims need to stand up on its own. To me, it seems that the people involved did feel like they were singled out for their ideas on intelligent design.
Benjamin Franklin – You are correct that Sternberg was not an employee of the Smithsonian Institute. I don’t recall how it was phrased in the movie but according to information on his web site, he was an employee for the National Institute of Health who worked 50% of his time at the Smithsonian and 50% of the time at the NIH. The letter (unless Sternberg faked it) goes on to document the findings of the OCS (Office of Special Counsel) and some of his allegations seem to be supported by the investigation. http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm
That said, I can’t tell you that the movie is 100% accurate and it’s impossible to research all of the connections and statements said in the movie but the people who were interviewed seem believable to me.
Kevin McKague said,
April 26, 2008 at 11:56 am
First of all, ID fails because many of its proponents are trying to prove an unprovable hypothesis. This fact alone makes it very, very unscientific.
Secondly, nothing in evolution even attempts to explain the very beginnings of species, merely how they adapt over time. Having said that, there is nothing incompatable with evolution religion, and the fact that many who teach evolution will profess a faith in God is proof of this.
What is most objectionable about tactics used by those in the ID movement is not that they believe that God created the universe, it is the fact that for some strange reason, they feel that they need to knock evolution to promote religion. They will confuse people about the nature of science and accuse the scientific community in order to do it. When somebody makes claims that evolution that requires a boatload of faith in the imaginary, they are not doing the ID movement any favors, they are showing a lack of understanding about the scientific method, and the scientific community.
Consider that much of what we now consider to be fact about our ecosystem, and even our medicines, would be unknowable if we had not first understood evolution. How’s that throat infection, Mr. ID guy? Whatever you do, don’t take an anti-biotic, we wouldn’t have them if not for Mr. Darwin’s evolution. Having trouble with your garden since the Weed-be-gone spray stopped killing weeds? Surely the weeds aren’t simply adapting to the spray. Maybe the garden simply wasn’t “intelligently designed” by its gardener.
If you want to suggest that God created the universe, by all means, go ahead. Just leave the science to the scientists.
Then again, maybe I’m being hasty.
After all, isn’t gravity just a “theory”, just like evolution. There are just too many things about gravity that can’t be proven by science, so lets throw that out too.
I now believe in “Intelligent Grappling”, that angels are actually responsible for holding us to the earth. If “Big Science” refuses to give IG equal time in science classes, well, that’s just proof of a wide-ranging conspiracy among the scientific community to support the unsupportable idea of gravity.
Maybe I should make a movie!
John the Skeptic said,
April 26, 2008 at 12:15 pm
If the producers of Expelled were interested in showing how people really have been by the IDC movement, they could have told the story of .
Ms. Comer was the Director of Science Curriculum for the Texas Educational Agency, until she was forced out of her job. Her offense? She forwarded an e-mail that announced an upcoming lecture by Barbara Forrest, an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In the view of the increasingly politicized Texas Educational Agency, by forwarding this e-mail Ms. Comer failed to be sufficiently “neutral” between science and creationism.
So where are the cries of outrage from the producers of Expelled, and the other leaders of the IDC movement? Why do they not rush to defend someone who, unlike Sternberg and the others featured in Expelled, really was fired for standing up for science?
The stench of their hypocrisy is revolting.
John the Skeptic said,
April 26, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Well, I messed up the hyperlink, but you get the idea.
alleychurch said,
April 26, 2008 at 8:22 pm
@ Kevin… don’t the majority of public school textbooks teach as fact an “unprovable hypothesis” that all things came from a “big bang” and that all origins of life are the result of random chance over millions/billions of years.
To say that ID theory isn’t science because it is unprovable but Evolution theory is… does not add up. No one argues that micro-evolution happens. The evolving and adapting that happens within a species. What is argued and should be argued about is macro-evolution, which is the idea that one species evolves into another.
It is also unfortunate that the idea of an intelligent designer, or God, is automatically considered bad science. Many here have said that there may very well be a God who created it all, but that is not the world of science. That makes little sense to me. If you are willing to consider a force larger than and outside of nature, wouldn’t science only serve to enhance our amazement at His greatness. Why are so many afraid to even consider the possibility?
“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.” Proverbs 25:2
Tina said,
April 27, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Saturday afternoon I was watching PBS and they were documenting a glacier climbing exhibition in Antarctica whose team was trying to be the first to explore some treacherous summit and after several failed attempts they finally made it to the top finally proving their theory that it could be done. I watched in amazement as they stayed true to their goal. And thought how crazy they were to risk their life in pursuit of proof.
Why am I so ambivalent in my action to want to pursue proof and just merely go along with the faith that God made everything and that’s that? When others want to pursue the science of that.
I have to admit that when I think of God – I carry with the question well if God made everything, who made God?
I decided to see this movie this afternoon. I don’t know much about science (it never was a favorite subject of mine) and so I was really sort of blindly going into this movie because I haven’t heard much of the debate.
In a piece of family folklore that my mom’s side of the family rarely talks about my great great grandfather was killed by a Nazi firing squad in front a few of his family members, so I have somewhat of a personal beef with the broad generality that this movie presumes that all those suppressing thought are being similar “killers” — only that of “killing” great thinking or the “killing” of careers of scientific pursuit.
It just goes to reason that in piecing this movie together Stein and the editors pepper what could be a rather thoughtful debate with peppered humor and satire that they created (take the slot machine example or the clip of the teacher from the 1950’s school movie asking the children if they know how to be quiet or like Tim said, the Wizard of Oz reference.)
I also really wanted to hear more proof of why these scientists felt they were wrongly expelled and more about what their thoughts were but ultimately I’m sure that would have made a mainstream documentary 4 – 5 hours in length.
It is unfortunate that the story of these scientists and their inability to pursue the science of ID is being quashed merely because of a vocal majority who believes that these scientists’ theories of pursuit of ID to be based on some sort of fiction instead of science. Who knows what they might find if given the option to do so?
I did feel really really anxious when I was listening to the one professor go on about the inevitable idea that no one who truly embraces the evolution concept could ever believe in God. As if the two theories could never be believed together.
My brain just doesn’t grasp scientific topics very well but I understand the debate of lack of proof on both sides of how the earth was created. And a part of me could see the idea of crystals being as plausible as God creating the heavens and the earth…but if crystals created the earth…who created the crystal?
Tina said,
April 27, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Also – is ID really unprovable hypothesis? How do we really know? I’m not knocking evolution by asking but I really am curious as to why it wouldn’t be considered a worthy scientific pursuit?
And secondly I really don’t understand why the pursuit of both ID and evolutionary theory couldn’t be pursued? It seemed like many of the scientists in the doc. took issue to referring to a “being” who created the universe, but isn’t that just a matter of a choice of words and theories?
Tina said,
April 27, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Also that shot that u included above of Ben staring at the statue was one of the more unsettling points of the movie for me.
theAlley church said,
April 29, 2008 at 11:22 am
The real kicker for seeking more… for wondering about a god, let alone seeking out the God is that absolutely no one has a plausible scientific answer for the origin of things.
Even if, and that is a big if, every complex living thing in our world today can be traced back to one single celled organism. Where did that come from? How did the inanimate become animate? How do you explain life?
Origins is a huge question. Take the big bang theory for instance. Doesn’t it automatically yield the question, “And what would have caused the big bang?” What was it’s origin?
Tim said,
April 29, 2008 at 5:06 pm
In the movie, when Ben Stein asked the Richard Dawkins what the best case scenario for intelligent design to be true was and Richard Dawkins said very clearly that he thought that only scenario for intelligent design would be that an alien race designed life on Earth and that it was not God. He was positive that it was not God and said that a few times. After Dawkins explains his alien/ intelligent design scenario, Ben Stein starts saying that Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design. As I said in the review, I think it’s unfair to ask someone to speculate and then turn their speculation into their main position but something else is interesting about this segment.
How can Dawkins be sure it’s not God? From his perspective, there is no evidence for either God or aliens so why say its possible that aliens created life but there is no way it could be God?
Another interesting link that speaks more on the end conversation with Dawkins and Stein.
http://www.discovery.org/a/4809
Anonymous said,
April 29, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Tim, I think you captured exactly what I was wondering about and that is how can these scientists completely discount an unproven theory and yet grasp onto one that sounds a bit more unproven like aliens? So do you think Stein was trying to equate alien with God as when you look at the two theories all you really do is exchange alien with God and there’s not much different with the theory.
Tim said,
April 29, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I think from a scientist’s perspective, the source of the intelligence should not make a difference. In the movie (if I remember correctly – maybe Tina can validate or correct this), Ben Stein doesn’t mention aliens to Dawkins but instead asks how intelligent design could be considered a scientific theory. Dawkins then says that the best hope for ID is if aliens had seeded the earth but goes on to say that it could not have been God who created life. I don’t think it was Ben Stein who suggested that aliens seeded the earth but I don’t exactly remember. The last interview goes pretty quickly…
Ben Stein was using the conversation to illustrate how some people react to God being used in science. From Dawkin’s perspective, there is no credible proof for or against either God or aliens so it’s interesting that he accepted aliens as the first cause of life but not God. As you said, from Dawkins perspective, it would be the same theory regardless of where the intelligence to create life came from and I would have thought that each scenario would hold the same probability in Dawkin’s mind.
John the Skeptic said,
April 30, 2008 at 6:44 am
Dawkins was not arguing alien-seeded panspermia as an actual scientific theory, because of course there is no evidence of that.
Rather, Dawkins was engaging in a “thought experiment”, to illustrate how ID is ultimately empty as an explanatory mechanism. It goes like this: Let’s say we assume for the sake of argument that an advanced alien civilization seeded the Earth with the various forms of life that we see, and that these original life forms had all the complex biochemical structures that Behe loves to point to. Does that solve the problem of the development of complex biochemical structures? Well, no. Because we still need to account for those structures in the aliens. ID still cannot account for the original formation of that biochemical complexity.
That’s the point that Dawkins was making.