Hello everybody 
I've written a piece on Ben Stein's move Expelled. This is my first time writing something like this so any comments would be extremely welcome, even just on spelling, grammar and writing style (though you may notice the spelling is intentionally english
). I appreciate it is pretty long so if you finish it I will buy you a cookie (I sent this to some friends from my church first, all you guys get is an eCookie, sorry). I have very strong views on this subject and I thought the film was rather misleading so I do think it is important.
Disclaimer: Having failed to take notes during the movie all the quotes are from memory so probably aren't accurate. If you remember quotes different please let me know, especially if it changes their meaning. If you remember the order of the film different or can remember who said the particular quotes that would also be pretty useful
Expelled: No Theistic Evolution Allowed
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is an Inconvenient Truth-esque documentary that looks at intelligent design (ID) theory and how it is being ‘expelled’ from academia. The film stars Ben Stein (Ferris Bueller’s day off) as he seeks to uncover the conspiracy against intelligent design. I must confess I didn’t walk into this movie with an open mind. I don’t think docu-movies starring celebrities are a good basis for forming your opinions on issues of the magnitude of the origins of the universe, science or religion. They tend to be designed to motivate those who already agree with their subject into action. I am a christian and I also accept the theory of evolution. People like me get labelled “theistic evolutionists” or “evolutionary creationists”. Importantly I am not an IDist. As a consequence I was probably watching with a slightly more critical eye than others might - waiting for sentences I didn’t agree with to jump on - as will probably become apparent.
On to the film, which divided rather neatly into 7 parts as follows:
Part 1: The Expelled
To start the film Ben Stein interviewed a series of academics who had been mistreated as a result of publishing papers inferring intelligent design or mentioning it in the classroom. If we weren’t quite sure this was a bad thing the interviews were spliced with black and white ‘vintage’ style clips of authoritarian governments, stern teachers dispensing discipline and, memorably, a guillotine.
Of course if academics are being expelled from their jobs because of the results of their studies this is, as the film tries to suggest, an outrage and a serious problem for the establishment. However, these accounts present only one side of the story, the other side is also available on the internet (for example ExpelledExposed and Wikipedia). Unfortunately these sites seem as biased in the other direction as expelled is towards ID. In America, it seems, there is never an unbiased and accurate report, one is left to try and discern the truth from the two extreme viewpoints. There was one quote from ExpelledExposed (produced by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) who feature in the film) that I found very entertaining. In response to Michael Egnor’s shock at the “viciousness” and “baseness” at the reaction to his ID material NCSE said, “Michael Egnor had apparently never been on the Internet before.”
Having read both sides I think the point remains that some of these people have been treated unfairly because of their intelligent design beliefs. Intelligent design is largely seen as unscientific and scientific establishments have been quick to try and distance themselves and their publications from the theory, and that has sometimes been accomplished by unjust methods. However, this says nothing about the theory itself.
Part 2: Intelligent Design
Next we are introduced to the organisation spearheading the intelligent design movement The Discovery Institute. Ben Stein is shocked that the evil corporation behind the intelligent design conspiracy isn’t based in an ominous ivory tower than dominates the landscape of Seattle but is just one little office on one little floor of one little building. Well of course he isn’t but during the whole film he’s pretending that he was one of the many Americans brainwashed by the Darwinist agenda who, through researching the topic, is freeing his mind. Whilst interviewing the ID advocates he poses the questions typically asked by evolutionists in rhetorical form to make it sound like he believes them and they couldn’t possibly be challenged (e.g. “Isn’t intelligent design just creationism in disguise?” Fortunately nobody is buying it, Stein won’t be receiving an Oscar for this acting in this movie.
As a side note here, throughout the film Ben Stein has been wearing a suit and tie, with trainers (tennis shoes for any Americans reading). I’m not sure why, I guess the suit says “intelligent” and the trainers say “not a close minded institution like the scientific community”. Whatever look he was going for he failed, epically.
The actual interview with Discovery Institute boss leaves us with two important points: intelligent design is not creationism and intelligent design is a scientific challenge to evolution, not a religious one. Given the history of the intelligent design movement these are very important points. The background of the movement is both religious and creationist but if intelligent design is to be taught in science classes it can’t advocate a particular religion, thanks to the first amendment, and it must be scientific.
After this interview we are shown some of the science behind ID. Sort of. First Ben asks an ID advocate where the Darwinism says the first cell came from. To his credit the IDist certainly implied that the origin of the first cell isn’t within the scope of the theory of evolution. To be clear the theory of evolution does not offer an explanation for the origin of the first cell. The mechanism proposed by Darwin requires self replicating organisms in order to work. The origin of the first self replicating organism needs to be explained by another theory, this is the subject of abiogenesis. However, Ben’s facial expressions make it clear that in his mind this is a genuine weakness of Darwinism and that is certainly the impression the film intends to leave the viewer.
The viewer is then treated to an impressive 3D CGI view of the workings of a cell. The camera flies around following proteins, created by the information in DNA, performing their various functions. The sequence is engrossing and awe inspiring. It does a very good job of demonstrating the immense complexity of the workings of a cell. Unfortunately the sequence is the subject of a copyright dispute. It is certainly very similar to a previous film by XVIVO called The Inner Life of the Cell, which slightly detracts from its originality at least. It is a shame that possibly the best sequence of the film has been tainted in this way.
Next Ben asks philosopher of science Michael Ruse where science thinks the first cell came from. To which he replied that one theory was that proteins piggy backed on crystals to form the first cell. Hilarious. That’s the best they can do? Crystals? If we weren’t amused enough our funny bones are further tickled by another ‘vintage’ clip of a mystic and a crystal ball. Crystal balls! Oh my sides are splitting - these Darwinists really are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Unfortunately when you dress the idea up in scientific language the humour doesn’t quite translate. Apparently various chiral crystal surfaces act as sites for possible concentration and assembly of chiral monomer units into macromolecules (Hazen, Robert M (2005), “Genesis: the scientific quest for life’s origin” (JosephHenry Books)). Unfortunately Stein decided to ask a philosopher of science about a very detailed scientific theory. Ruse provided a pretty good layman’s summary and mocking simplified descriptions is never a good idea. Einstein’s relativity sounds pretty silly when you present it as, “time runs quicker for some people than others”.
The crystal theory is one of a few hypotheses for abiogenesis. It’s worth mentioning that all of them are very speculative. No one has produced life in a laboratory so science is a long way from providing a complete explanation for the origin the first cell. However, as mentioned previously, this in no way affects the theory of evolution. The first cell could have been created miraculously by God, or designed by an advanced alien race and the theory of evolution would still hold. The other thing lacking from this section is any positive evidence for intelligent design. The only argument I saw was that the cell is so complicated it must be designed, and the ID advocates explicitly said there was more to intelligent design than that.
I was rather puzzled by the omission of Michael Behe and his theory of irreducible complexity (which he presents in the book Darwin’s Black Box). To my mind irreducible complexity is one of the best attempts to make intelligent design scientific and a genuinely possible objection to the theory of evolution. Personally I don’t think it succeeds as either but I’m still surprised it hasn’t been included in the film. What we are left with is no attack on the theory of evolution, an attack on abiogenesis that amounts to “the cell is too complex” and no positive argument or alternative theory from intelligent design.
Part 3: Evolution and Atheism
This section of the film was introduced by a quote from Eugenie Scott of the NCSE in which she said, something to the effect of, “The best kept secret in this debate is that Catholics and many mainline Protestants don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution”. This quote surprises Ben Stein and he decides to investigate the claim. At this point my ears prick up and I’m genuinely interested how Ben will handle this question. Surely he will mention the declaration by the late Pope John Paul II that the amount of evidence means evolution is “more than a hypothesis”? Perhaps he will interview some leading scientists who are christian and accept evolution like Ken Miller, Francis Collins or the Revd. Dr John Polkinghorne? Unfortunately not, I guess the producers couldn’t afford to interview any new people as the quotes are from exactly the same selection of militantly atheist scientists and anti-evolution intelligent design scientists as before. Not one theistic evolutionist is included. The film makes it clear that acceptance of the theory of evolution automatically leads to atheism. When asked why they didn’t interview Ken Miller (Brown biology professor and auther of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution) associate producer Mark Mathis said his views would “unnecessarily confuse the purpose of the film”. It seems the purpose of the film is to polarise the issue and as such the theistic evolutionist point of view, my point of view, is expelled.
Dawkin’s tells us how the theory of evolution helped lead him to atheism and an ID advocate at least admits there are christian evolutionists but paints them as “liberal christians who have united with atheists in their ongoing war against conservative christians”. I hope my conservative christian friends heed this warning.
Part 4: Science and Religion
The film then spends some time discussing the relationship between science and religion in more general terms. At this point the film has me wholeheartedly back on board. The atheists are suggesting that religion is ridiculous and like a fairy tale and that science leads to atheism and I passionately disagree with them. The theists are saying that science is compatible with religious faith and proper application of both can actually present a richer view of the universe and existence than either can separately, and I completely agree with them. Especially with a chap they haven’t interviewed before by the name of Revd. Dr John Polkinghorne. If his name sounds familiar it should, I mentioned him in the last section. I can see why they wanted to include his views, after 25 years as a particle physicist and then becoming an Anglican priest in 1982 he has remarkable experience in this field as is widely recognised as one of the top thinkers on science and religion. He’s also a theistic evolutionist, and his views - which are so adored by the producers here - would have completely nullified the argument of the previous section that evolution leads to atheism. Also included is Alister McGrath who has similar credentials and is also a theistic evolutionist. Both are English so perhaps the producers wanted to include their intelligent sounding, upper class, English accents to counter Richard Dawkins’ intelligent sounding, upper class, English accent. Or perhaps the fact that Polkinghorne is an academic at Cambridge University and McGrath is an academic at Oxford University was supposed to counter Dawkins’ status as an Oxford academic.
I've written a piece on Ben Stein's move Expelled. This is my first time writing something like this so any comments would be extremely welcome, even just on spelling, grammar and writing style (though you may notice the spelling is intentionally english
). I appreciate it is pretty long so if you finish it I will buy you a cookie (I sent this to some friends from my church first, all you guys get is an eCookie, sorry). I have very strong views on this subject and I thought the film was rather misleading so I do think it is important.Disclaimer: Having failed to take notes during the movie all the quotes are from memory so probably aren't accurate. If you remember quotes different please let me know, especially if it changes their meaning. If you remember the order of the film different or can remember who said the particular quotes that would also be pretty useful
Expelled: No Theistic Evolution Allowed
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is an Inconvenient Truth-esque documentary that looks at intelligent design (ID) theory and how it is being ‘expelled’ from academia. The film stars Ben Stein (Ferris Bueller’s day off) as he seeks to uncover the conspiracy against intelligent design. I must confess I didn’t walk into this movie with an open mind. I don’t think docu-movies starring celebrities are a good basis for forming your opinions on issues of the magnitude of the origins of the universe, science or religion. They tend to be designed to motivate those who already agree with their subject into action. I am a christian and I also accept the theory of evolution. People like me get labelled “theistic evolutionists” or “evolutionary creationists”. Importantly I am not an IDist. As a consequence I was probably watching with a slightly more critical eye than others might - waiting for sentences I didn’t agree with to jump on - as will probably become apparent.
On to the film, which divided rather neatly into 7 parts as follows:
Part 1: The Expelled
To start the film Ben Stein interviewed a series of academics who had been mistreated as a result of publishing papers inferring intelligent design or mentioning it in the classroom. If we weren’t quite sure this was a bad thing the interviews were spliced with black and white ‘vintage’ style clips of authoritarian governments, stern teachers dispensing discipline and, memorably, a guillotine.
Of course if academics are being expelled from their jobs because of the results of their studies this is, as the film tries to suggest, an outrage and a serious problem for the establishment. However, these accounts present only one side of the story, the other side is also available on the internet (for example ExpelledExposed and Wikipedia). Unfortunately these sites seem as biased in the other direction as expelled is towards ID. In America, it seems, there is never an unbiased and accurate report, one is left to try and discern the truth from the two extreme viewpoints. There was one quote from ExpelledExposed (produced by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) who feature in the film) that I found very entertaining. In response to Michael Egnor’s shock at the “viciousness” and “baseness” at the reaction to his ID material NCSE said, “Michael Egnor had apparently never been on the Internet before.”
Having read both sides I think the point remains that some of these people have been treated unfairly because of their intelligent design beliefs. Intelligent design is largely seen as unscientific and scientific establishments have been quick to try and distance themselves and their publications from the theory, and that has sometimes been accomplished by unjust methods. However, this says nothing about the theory itself.
Part 2: Intelligent Design
Next we are introduced to the organisation spearheading the intelligent design movement The Discovery Institute. Ben Stein is shocked that the evil corporation behind the intelligent design conspiracy isn’t based in an ominous ivory tower than dominates the landscape of Seattle but is just one little office on one little floor of one little building. Well of course he isn’t but during the whole film he’s pretending that he was one of the many Americans brainwashed by the Darwinist agenda who, through researching the topic, is freeing his mind. Whilst interviewing the ID advocates he poses the questions typically asked by evolutionists in rhetorical form to make it sound like he believes them and they couldn’t possibly be challenged (e.g. “Isn’t intelligent design just creationism in disguise?”
Fortunately nobody is buying it, Stein won’t be receiving an Oscar for this acting in this movie.As a side note here, throughout the film Ben Stein has been wearing a suit and tie, with trainers (tennis shoes for any Americans reading). I’m not sure why, I guess the suit says “intelligent” and the trainers say “not a close minded institution like the scientific community”. Whatever look he was going for he failed, epically.
The actual interview with Discovery Institute boss leaves us with two important points: intelligent design is not creationism and intelligent design is a scientific challenge to evolution, not a religious one. Given the history of the intelligent design movement these are very important points. The background of the movement is both religious and creationist but if intelligent design is to be taught in science classes it can’t advocate a particular religion, thanks to the first amendment, and it must be scientific.
After this interview we are shown some of the science behind ID. Sort of. First Ben asks an ID advocate where the Darwinism says the first cell came from. To his credit the IDist certainly implied that the origin of the first cell isn’t within the scope of the theory of evolution. To be clear the theory of evolution does not offer an explanation for the origin of the first cell. The mechanism proposed by Darwin requires self replicating organisms in order to work. The origin of the first self replicating organism needs to be explained by another theory, this is the subject of abiogenesis. However, Ben’s facial expressions make it clear that in his mind this is a genuine weakness of Darwinism and that is certainly the impression the film intends to leave the viewer.
The viewer is then treated to an impressive 3D CGI view of the workings of a cell. The camera flies around following proteins, created by the information in DNA, performing their various functions. The sequence is engrossing and awe inspiring. It does a very good job of demonstrating the immense complexity of the workings of a cell. Unfortunately the sequence is the subject of a copyright dispute. It is certainly very similar to a previous film by XVIVO called The Inner Life of the Cell, which slightly detracts from its originality at least. It is a shame that possibly the best sequence of the film has been tainted in this way.
Next Ben asks philosopher of science Michael Ruse where science thinks the first cell came from. To which he replied that one theory was that proteins piggy backed on crystals to form the first cell. Hilarious. That’s the best they can do? Crystals? If we weren’t amused enough our funny bones are further tickled by another ‘vintage’ clip of a mystic and a crystal ball. Crystal balls! Oh my sides are splitting - these Darwinists really are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Unfortunately when you dress the idea up in scientific language the humour doesn’t quite translate. Apparently various chiral crystal surfaces act as sites for possible concentration and assembly of chiral monomer units into macromolecules (Hazen, Robert M (2005), “Genesis: the scientific quest for life’s origin” (JosephHenry Books)). Unfortunately Stein decided to ask a philosopher of science about a very detailed scientific theory. Ruse provided a pretty good layman’s summary and mocking simplified descriptions is never a good idea. Einstein’s relativity sounds pretty silly when you present it as, “time runs quicker for some people than others”.
The crystal theory is one of a few hypotheses for abiogenesis. It’s worth mentioning that all of them are very speculative. No one has produced life in a laboratory so science is a long way from providing a complete explanation for the origin the first cell. However, as mentioned previously, this in no way affects the theory of evolution. The first cell could have been created miraculously by God, or designed by an advanced alien race and the theory of evolution would still hold. The other thing lacking from this section is any positive evidence for intelligent design. The only argument I saw was that the cell is so complicated it must be designed, and the ID advocates explicitly said there was more to intelligent design than that.
I was rather puzzled by the omission of Michael Behe and his theory of irreducible complexity (which he presents in the book Darwin’s Black Box). To my mind irreducible complexity is one of the best attempts to make intelligent design scientific and a genuinely possible objection to the theory of evolution. Personally I don’t think it succeeds as either but I’m still surprised it hasn’t been included in the film. What we are left with is no attack on the theory of evolution, an attack on abiogenesis that amounts to “the cell is too complex” and no positive argument or alternative theory from intelligent design.
Part 3: Evolution and Atheism
This section of the film was introduced by a quote from Eugenie Scott of the NCSE in which she said, something to the effect of, “The best kept secret in this debate is that Catholics and many mainline Protestants don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution”. This quote surprises Ben Stein and he decides to investigate the claim. At this point my ears prick up and I’m genuinely interested how Ben will handle this question. Surely he will mention the declaration by the late Pope John Paul II that the amount of evidence means evolution is “more than a hypothesis”? Perhaps he will interview some leading scientists who are christian and accept evolution like Ken Miller, Francis Collins or the Revd. Dr John Polkinghorne? Unfortunately not, I guess the producers couldn’t afford to interview any new people as the quotes are from exactly the same selection of militantly atheist scientists and anti-evolution intelligent design scientists as before. Not one theistic evolutionist is included. The film makes it clear that acceptance of the theory of evolution automatically leads to atheism. When asked why they didn’t interview Ken Miller (Brown biology professor and auther of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution) associate producer Mark Mathis said his views would “unnecessarily confuse the purpose of the film”. It seems the purpose of the film is to polarise the issue and as such the theistic evolutionist point of view, my point of view, is expelled.
Dawkin’s tells us how the theory of evolution helped lead him to atheism and an ID advocate at least admits there are christian evolutionists but paints them as “liberal christians who have united with atheists in their ongoing war against conservative christians”. I hope my conservative christian friends heed this warning.
Part 4: Science and Religion
The film then spends some time discussing the relationship between science and religion in more general terms. At this point the film has me wholeheartedly back on board. The atheists are suggesting that religion is ridiculous and like a fairy tale and that science leads to atheism and I passionately disagree with them. The theists are saying that science is compatible with religious faith and proper application of both can actually present a richer view of the universe and existence than either can separately, and I completely agree with them. Especially with a chap they haven’t interviewed before by the name of Revd. Dr John Polkinghorne. If his name sounds familiar it should, I mentioned him in the last section. I can see why they wanted to include his views, after 25 years as a particle physicist and then becoming an Anglican priest in 1982 he has remarkable experience in this field as is widely recognised as one of the top thinkers on science and religion. He’s also a theistic evolutionist, and his views - which are so adored by the producers here - would have completely nullified the argument of the previous section that evolution leads to atheism. Also included is Alister McGrath who has similar credentials and is also a theistic evolutionist. Both are English so perhaps the producers wanted to include their intelligent sounding, upper class, English accents to counter Richard Dawkins’ intelligent sounding, upper class, English accent. Or perhaps the fact that Polkinghorne is an academic at Cambridge University and McGrath is an academic at Oxford University was supposed to counter Dawkins’ status as an Oxford academic.
Last edited:
. Good spot.
