Make the hurting stop
Director: Nathan Frankowski
Starring: Richard Sternberg, Mark Souder, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Ben Stein
Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Thanks to the magic of Netflix On Demand, @squorch and I took an evening to sync up our computers and watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I will attempt to summarize the film's message:
Darwinists hate Intelligent Design because they hate Christians. This means that Christians make the best scientists, but science makes people atheists, so scientists are atheists, which is why Christians hide the fact that they're not atheists when doing science, except for the liberal Christians, who are Hitler and hate Jewish babies. This is how we know Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion.
Ronald Reagan loved Freedom.
Wow
I am so confused!
so you finally watched it...
so you finally watched it... I think I will skip that one to keep my sanity.
A Scattered Film
I agree the film is scattered and it's hard to actually bring the disparate parts together into a coherent care message. The drinking game probably doesn't help. ;-)
I totally respect your work and you are a brilliant guy, but I think you need to look at your assumptions. For starters, Ben Stiller isn't a Christian and he wasn't pushing any particular religion in this film. I think he tried to be clear about this, but it seems to have been a lost point to a lot of people. Unfortunately, that's an important point in the film so it disappoints me that many seem to miss it.
I enjoyed how the film was shot. The use of light, angles and things like that was interesting. Visual metaphors were over-the-top like you mentioned. The whole Hitler comparison... yeah, don't think that was the best way to go with that. :-)
First, a confession...
...There wasn't actually a drinking game. I value my liver too much for that. ;-)
No arguments there! Ben Stein is not a Christian, and I agree that he was not "pushing" that religion, in the sense that he did not explain or share Christian theology or suggest that people convert to Christianity. I never said that the film included an altar call, but I stand by my somewhat-tongue-in-cheek summary of its core message.
Intelligent Design is a religious movement whose purpose is sidestepping the cognitive dissonance that comes when "strict literalism" collides with external contradictions. The film spends its first 45 minutes denying this, then shows its true colors in the home stretch, with its interview subjects lashing out at "atheists" and "liberal Christians" who "side with atheists because they dislike conservatives so much."
This is, as many have noted, the fallacy of the exclude middle writ large: the vast majority of Christians have no problem resolving evolution with their faith, and the vast majority of atheists are atheists for reasons other than "Darwin convinced me God doesn't exist." The obsession with Richard Dawkins is another tell: Stein grills him about the Old Testament to cast doubt on evolution. It's like watching someone quiz Billy Graham about DNA sequencing to disprove the doctrine of the Trinity.
In the first half, the film asserts that Intelligent Design could include any creator -- aliens, space-monkeys, Yahweh, or the Spaghetti Monster. In the second half, it shows "gotcha" clips of scientists musing about the possibility of alien civilizations "seeding" life on Earth, and clearly suggests that only those desperate to hold onto atheism would believe such silliness! Apparently Intelligent Deisgn is only rational and logical, apparently, when the "Intelligent" part is the Biblical God.
Indeed -- it was well produced though it had boggling amounts of filler. Unfortunately, that visual polish was used to hide the truth rather than reveal it.
Stein presents the dispassionate face of the impartial observer, but the film is propoganda, not documentary. It misrepresents the nature of the debate about ID, framing it (endlessly!) as a fight between freedom and repression rather than a scientific rigor vs. unprovable fringe science. Stein's treatment of his interview subjects, and ediing of the subsequent interviews, makes Michael Moore look like an icon of impartiality.
At its heart, the movie is not about science, and not about academic freedom: it's about pseudoscience, and the why-does-the-man-keep-us-down fist-shaking that its proponents all fall back on when they cannot substantiate their claims. The same pattern is there: no falsifiable hypotheses, just potshots at the 'consensus'; claims of persecution when people stop giving them money; bold claims that betray fundamental misunderstandings of the science they attack; and of course the extended musings on why their opponents are like Hitler.
The bottom line is this: those who argue that Christians cannot accept evolution do their faith a profound disservice. Their claim is a theological one rather than a factual one, no different than saying that drinking alcohol is incompatible with Christianity.
Thank you for your thoughtful
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I didn't expect as much and agree with much of what you say.
Stein certainly didn't make a good case for Intelligent Design, but I think he did open up a question that does need a better answer than he provided. Why doesn't ID research get funding? Stepping aside from the question of faith, I think science is dis-served when it is restricted from looking into an area where some well credentialed scientist thinks deserves research. Whether Stein did a good job of using the people he had to make the point isn't my point. He did drag some well trained and credentialed people onto the screen who said they were not allowed to follow avenues of study or were stopped from following avenues of research when the research started to point at Intelligent Design. Some even testified of an abrupt stop to their professional progress (tenure, promotions, employment, etc.). Whether evolution is the best theory or not, it hardly seems appropriate to stop someone who's very job is to question everything that they might stretch the boundaries of science from questioning this topic. Why not let them just be proven wrong and build the case for evolution?
I do take exception with the idea that the "vast majority of Christians have no problem resolving evolution with their faith". I'd say it's foundational to plausibility of my faith, but that isn't really the direction of this conversation so I won't go further on that.
Underlying questions
ID research does get funding -- from proponents of ID like the Discovery Institute, the Templeton Foundation, etc. That's how most science gets funded in most cases -- a person or group with cash ponies up because they believe some research will benefit humankind, or advance their own goals. If research fails to yield results, however, funding drops away.
...Because scientists are doing just that every day? "Building the case for evolution" doesn't consist of having town-hall debates with Michael Behe. The principles of biological evolution (both macro and micro) have led to decades of progress in many fields -- genetics and immunology are two great examples. In addition to research explicitly related to evolution, the success of research in those other fields constitutes a corollary cloud of confirmation.
And therein lies the fundamental problem with the film: it is asking a question that the scientific community believes has already been answered conclusively. It's easy to say that the scientific establishment "defends" evolution, but it does that because it works as a unifying predictive model. Any model has unexplained gaps: the challenge is to build one that has better predictive powers than the old one. That's how science works, and unfortunately ID doesn't predict things -- it just claims that "Darwinism has failed".
The question posed by the movies can go both ways: what evidence would proponents of Intelligent Design accept as proof that their theory is disproven?
Scientists who keep hearing about the "controversy" of ID must feel a bit like Christian ministers who keep hearing about the "controversy" of Christ's bloodline after people read The DiVinci Code. Turns out, The Church is not suppressing the story of Jesus and Mary's child: it just considers it a dead conspiracy theory, resolved eons ago, and theologians don't waste their time grappling with its potential implications.
Fair enough -- I don't want to attack or question your faith. I spent most of my life as a Christian and a supporter of Creationism (before we started calling it ID). When I say that the majority of Christians have no problem resolving evolution with their faith, I'm pointing out the fact that the movie excludes the vast "middle" of a complex debate and focuses on two extremes: atheists who hate Christianity, like Dawkins, and Christians who support ID because it fits with their theology, like the folks from the Discovery Institute.
The film's producers even admit that they deliberately scrapped interviews with Christian scientists who support evolution because the footage would have undercut the film's false dichotomy.
The number of faithful Christians who work in science and have no beef with the theory of evolution -- and the number of faithful Christians worldwide who have no beef with it -- belies the film's polarizing claims. If you believe that biological macro-evolution prove your faith false, that's fine. But please don't confuse that with anything inherent to Christian orthodoxy.
Also...
I spent some follow-up time researching the individuals who were "Expelled" and blacklisted in the film for advocating intelligent design; I have to say that I was really shocked by how dishonest Stein and company's framing of those stories was.
The teacher who was kicked out of George Mason University? Turns out she wasn't kicked out. She kept working at GMU for almost a year until her contract was up, then taught at Northern Virginia Community College, and eventually took a position at another university doing T-cell research. This despite the movie's claim that she was immediately fired and blacklisted, unable to get academic work. According to articles about the controversy itself, the movie also grossly misrepresents what she taught. She didn't just "mention" ID to students -- she spent considerable time giving them factually incorrect information about evolutionary theory in an attempt to disprove it, and students complained.
After doing some of my own research I discovered that others have conveniently and helpfully compiled quite a bit of evidence at the site http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth ... It's a little easier to prove that site's claims, too. While Expelled relies on carefully snipped interviews and spliced in comedy footage, Expelled Exposed gives extensive citations for its sources. Before taking Stein's discussion of academic oppression at face value, I'd suggest digging for some background information.
Thanks, I'll go check it out.
Thanks, I'll go check it out. In reflection, I suppose the way the "argument" of the movie was constructed should lead me to suspect the "facts" they present. I know that manufactured facts are a device that I wish people of "faith" would stop manipulating. Theirs just too many people out their looking for a quick buck and are willing to prey on the blind faith of others. I'll go dig in.
Thanks also for a calm and direct discussion. Far too often these things get heated and people start verbally throwing things. Your tone has been most refreshing. :-)
Dissapointed
When I first saw Expelled I was extremely disappointed. I felt the attitude of the movie wasn't to explore the topic of intelligent design but to attack those that think differently. I just plain don't like that way of doing things.
There is a trend that's come into our society in recent years (sorry I couldn't find the study link) that people are now more likely to attack things they don't agree with. I think this film highlights this is action. It's sad, really. Instead of learning and exploring we stay in our own comfortable space and fight to stop change.
Also, I've heard 3rd hand that Stein is a Christian. I know he's Jewish.
I had no idea about the shady reporting on the people reported to be fired in the movie. That makes this whole thing even more disappointing.
I wish this topic was handled better because there is some good stuff that needs to be talked about which is avoided. Especially, when these topics hit the general public.
When I was in college I took a physiology class and found out that my phd student teacher was a believer in intelligent design. This was off the record and in a side discussion. The teacher didn't want it getting out. There was some fear there because of some of the things going on.
Whether you agree with the person or not that fear shouldn't be there.
In my opinion there is a bad approach to science and truth in our culture. I know a lot of people who look to science to provide truth and meaning. Science is to figure out how the universe works. There is so much we don't know that world views, truth as someone believes it to be, is often used to fill in blanks when coming up with scientific conclusion. It's bad logic and reason to figure out a personal truth based on a theory that's based on a believed truth of someone else.
There is, also, a lot of bad information out there. When I was at a bar in college and was told what I though the big bang said was wrong I was flabbergasted (part having my education shot down and part a few beers). It was an astrophysicist student. Years later when I learned what the theory says compared to what I was taught I felt burned by the educational system that taught me wrongly. (That same system gave me the rotten grammar I have today :))
I guess I saw this movie as having an opportunity to open up a topic that's not talked about enough. That is the assumptions and presumptions that sit in some parts of science which we take for granted. That people don't even realize are part of the makeup of what they believe.
We live in a culture that seems to challenge and question many standing presumptions, assumptions, and beliefs. If it's done well I think it's healthy. I didn't see that here.
ok, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Interesting timing on your post. You might be interested in another blog post (pointing to a bbc article) at http://joeburnham.com/community/2009/01/29/subjectivity-science.
True dat, yo.
Matt, thanks for the in-depth response!
I agree that the disingenuous nature of the film, and how it framed the questions it teased the viewer with, were the most disappointing aspects of the entire production. Indeed, I think framing these kind of debates as strict "If this is true, all we believe is for naught!" issues does believers a huge disservice. It reminds me heated KJV-only debates; if you convince people to put all their chips on something that is not actually central to Christian orthodoxy, you set them up for some profoundly faith-shaking experiences if they realize the all-important thing is not in fact perfect. (I saw this happen to a friend who was a KJV-only die hard, then learned Greek. Whoops!)
True, though I wonder about the implications of this. Imagine the flip side: a youth pastor at your church admits to you, privately, that he is a gnostic. The kids like him! Attendance is up! But he's a gnostic. Should he be afraid to let that information out?
Despite Stein's complaints, the scientific community is pretty merciless with itself, and doesn't hold too many sacred cows... save the process by which those cows get slaughtered. In many ways, ID proponents who say that questions remain unanswered are demanding the Council of Nicea be held again every time Kirk Cameron peels a banana. In other ways, even that comparison is unfair: the only requirement for slaughtering the sacred cow of evolution is to make a theory with better predictive abilities. ID proponents haven't, and the case -- until they do -- remains closed in most scientists' minds. I can understand how those unfamiliar with the process would see it as 'dogmatism.'
Indeed. I think that to a large extent, this is a symptom of our society's general muddying of the 'authority' waters. Richard Dawkins can write about religion, The Pope can write about science, and software developers can write about both! ;-)
Post new comment