Earlier today, I finally had the pleasure of viewing Expelled, Ben Stein's controversial documentary that seeks to validate the theory of intelligent design. Despite the fact that the film was certainly a one-sided affair, I felt the presentation was both effective and enjoyable. It also approached the material with, at times, a sense of humor, as well as a strong level of relevance (I also liked the soundtrack, which included a string arrangement of Jimi Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" and a Johnny Cash cover of the Depeche Mode hit "Personal Jesus").
However, rather than provide a thorough review of the film, I would like to instead focus on the argument that the film presented to its audience: that the theory of intelligent design has come under intense scrutiny and has been severely censored on a number of occasions.
Let me begin by clarifying that I myself have an unyielding belief in the theory of intelligent design. Due to this prevailing fact, it may seem that I am allowing a natural bias towards the material in the film to corrupt any sound level of judgment. But my main point of contention, which the film brilliantly illustrates, isn't the validity of the theory itself; theories are meant to be challenged, and I think such challenges should be welcomed and encouraged in the realm of science. However, I do take great offense at the censorship of such theories, for I do not support the concept of censorship in general. I believe that there a number of reasons these acts of censorship are not only unjust, but also contrary to the very purpose of science. If we analyze some of the points presented in the film, this becomes fairly evident.
One of the first sections of Stein's argument explored in the film is the exclusion and extermination of the intelligent design theory on the campuses of many prestigious colleges and universities. Stein reveals that there have been countless professors and theorists who have been unceremoniously removed from their university positions. In each instance, the reason for their termination was attributed to the individual's interest and/or belief in the theory of intelligent design. This fact in itself is one that should cause alarm among many.
According to the information presented in the film, there have been active efforts to remove the theory of intelligent design from the consciousness of educational institutions nationwide, and to exalt the theory of evolution as the only rational explanation for the origin and development of life. In my opinion, this process is fraught with flaws. It seems that these institutions have gradually lost sight of one of the most prominent characteristic of evolutionary theory: it is ultimately just a theory. Yet in many scientific circles, it is no longer considered a theory, but fervently argued as completely factual. This seems contradictory to the very purpose of science; science is meant to acquire knowledge and information through study and analysis. If one fully adopts a theory that has yet to be fully proven, without any skepticism concerning its validity, is that not in opposition of the very function of science?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com
Michael said:
"However, I also believe that there is a place for the theory of intelligent design in our education as well."
How can ID be taught when there is no hypothesis for it? The Discovery Institute has no textbook for what ID theory is. They do not suggest using the textbook "of Pandas and People." Some in ID, such as Behe, believe in common ancestry for humans and animals, and some think humans were specially created... so what exactly is ID? Evolution is a grand theory and there is yet no alternative. Poking holes in evolution doesn't prove another theory. To prove another theory you have to form a hypothesis and then test it- ID doesn't have a hypothesis with tests- they simply aim to discredit evolution and then claim that ID wins... but that does not logically follow.
Even the Discovery Institute is suggesting that ID NOT be taught in school- instead, "teach the controversy" on evolution. That is because they have nothing to teach regarding ID and a hypothesis... and yet they are "expelled" ???
2 - Bryan Leed
I think that the main reason that "Darwinism" is an issue is that it has, in itself, become the basis of religious belief for people who reject the Biblical version of God. Richard Dawkins has said that Darwin made atheism seem intelligent.
Another reason is that there is an entire, vast industry in academia and the sciences whereby organizations, companies, and individuals have their entire careers, reputations, and livelihoods riding upon the supposed factualness of the theory of evolution, despite that the theory has major problems, little evidence, and is perceived to be a huge house of cards by its critics.
There is also an ideological component to the theory of evolution, beyond the mass murderers of the last century, and that is that it gives a seemingly reasonable argument: if the Bible is wrong about Creation, then it is proven false, so why adhere to Biblical teachings on morality?!
As the Bible says, "Let God be true and every man a liar." I will side with the Bible.
The author of the recent book WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY, Dinesh D'Souza, says his main beef is not with the theory of evolution, but rather that both sides of the argument have religious reasons either for or against. He says his problem with the way that public schools present evolution is to actually say in the text books that we need no longer believe the Bible because evolution has proven it wrong. This is foul, because public schools should not be allowed to comment negatively against religion.
3 - zingzing
"the way that public schools present evolution is to actually say in the text books that we need no longer believe the Bible because evolution has proven it wrong. This is foul, because public schools should not be allowed to comment negatively against religion."
what a crock of shit. evolution is presented as a scientific theory. religion has no place in science classes. intelligent design is not taught in science classes because it is not scientific.
"There is also an ideological component to the theory of evolution, beyond the mass murderers of the last century, and that is that it gives a seemingly reasonable argument: if the Bible is wrong about Creation, then it is proven false, so why adhere to Biblical teachings on morality?!"
because morality was not created by the bible? because morality and religion are not the same thing?
4 - Dr Dreadful
Bryan, your comment is so full of holes I hardly know where to start. I guess I should just confiscate the legion of straw men you've set up.
there is an entire, vast industry in academia and the sciences whereby organizations, companies, and individuals have their entire careers, reputations, and livelihoods riding upon the supposed factualness of the theory of evolution
And these people will all tell you that the reason that they can do their jobs is because evolution is a fact. The entire science of biology makes no sense if you remove evolution. Much work in the fields of pest control, pharmaceuticals, disease research and many others would be impossible without a practical application of the theory of evolution.
despite that the theory has major problems
Name one.
little evidence
How about literally billions of pages of research and hard data and millions of fossils and other physical evidence? You do know how to use Google, don't you? Claiming that this body of knowledge constitutes 'little evidence' makes as much sense as saying that Homo sapiens is an endangered species.
There is also an ideological component to the theory of evolution, beyond the mass murderers of the last century, and that is that it gives a seemingly reasonable argument: if the Bible is wrong about Creation, then it is proven false, so why adhere to Biblical teachings on morality?!
Give me a link to one reputable statement of the theory of evolution that says this.
He says his problem with the way that public schools present evolution is to actually say in the text books that we need no longer believe the Bible because evolution has proven it wrong.
Again, please cite one school science textbook that makes this statement.
5 - Andy Marsh
I don't get it...when I was a kid in school, I was taught both...creationism and evolution...guess you public school kids only get half the story???
I will say that the nuns never tried to expalin how the two theories fit together or didn't, they just laid them out there and let us figure it out for ourselves...
I kinda figured that evolution was part of it and ID was the other part...everything evolves and somewhere along the lines we were given self-awareness...and that's where the ID part of it comes in...
But why do people have to get so nasty about it? Read some of these comments and you'd think the writer was extolling the virtues of child porn or some BS like that!
This is an old BC discussion and it ALWAYS seems to be just as ugly no matter how many times it's bought up. Whether you hardcore evolutionists wanna believe it or not...it is still just a THEORY!
just a thought...
6 - Dr Dreadful
Andy, I was also taught both. I was educated in Britain, where - believe it or not - the only subject that it is legally compulsory to teach in the public schools is religious education.
Nowadays, of course, most schools get around it by teaching it as 'religious studies' - i.e. comparative religion. Students learn about the various faiths and belief systems of the world - they're not indoctrinated into any particular one.
In the high school I attended, religious education wasn't taken at all seriously, to the point of the school 'forgetting' to include it in the curriculum a couple of years. It was considered something of a joke, by both students and faculty. I remember my teacher reading out with great relish (and pretend indignation) some answers that had been given on a test: one student had written that a bar mitzvah was a ceremony in which the inductee had to read the Torah out loud while being circumcized; another, in response to a question requiring the composition of a sentence with the word atonement in it, had written, "I went to see my music teacher and he told me what a tone meant".
It was in religious studies that I learned about the Judeo-Christian ideas as to the origin of the universe. But I was not taught them in any of my science classes.
And that is the point. By all means teach the Biblical creation stories or the idea that God designed and built the universe - but NOT in science classes, which should deal only with the natural and not with a philosophical theory that has no scientific merit.
7 - Ray Ingles
Hitler wasn't an 'evolutionist'. He sure wasn't a traditional Christian, of course, but he was sort of a neo-Pagan crypto-Christian who explicitly rejected evolution and based his racism on the idea that the 'races' had been created separately. The Holocaust owed far more to the virulent strain of anti-Semitism that Martin Luther embraced and fostered. That was certainly the motivation for the majority who actually carried out the crimes in person.
As to the Communist states under Stalin and Mao - they also explicitly rejected neo-Darwinian evolution and embraced (and enforced) Lysenkoism instead. The resulting crop failures when reality failed to match up to "worker's science" killed millions, accounting for a substantial chunk - possibly a majority - of the death toll from those regimes.
Ironically, the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have been better off if those 'leaders' had accepted neo-Darwinian evolution.
8 - BobC
"the theory of intelligent design"
Intelligent design creationism is not a scientific theory.
Intelligent design is a childish belief in magic, and only uneducated hicks like Michael Clayton believe in it.
[personal attack deleted]
9 - BobC
Intelligent design means "I'm too bloody stupid to understand science, therefore everything is magic."
Invoking intelligent design is the same as invoking magic. Creationism was renamed to intelligent design in an idiotic attempt to sneak religious magic into science education, as if any competent biology teacher would ever agree to lie to her students.
All I can say about intelligent design magic proponents is that they are incredibly stupid, gullible, and they are compulsive liars. They will never be allowed to stick their breathtaking stupidity into public school science education.
10 - BobC
Biological evolution is a scientific fact. The evidence for evolution has been accumulating for 150 years. The evidence is overwhelming and rapidly growing. The newer molecular evidence is extremely powerful. There is absolutely no doubt all life is related and all species share common ancestors.
Michael Clayton, if you weren't a god-soaked idiot, and if you had any intelligence at all, you would know evolution is a fact.
Unfortunately for yourself, you are too lazy to study science, and you are too stupid to understand science. So like most liars for Jesus, you invoke magic to explain the diversity of life.
Like most creationists you're a compulsive liar, so you call your magic "design" to make your stupidity sound scientific.
You're not fooling anyone, Michael Clayton. Everyone knows your design means magically created [personal attack deleted].
11 - Ruvy
Bob C.
I would tell you to pick on someone with your own intellect, but that would leave you arguing with retards and fools, for your comments indeed proclaim you as a fool - the fact that you need to repeat them endlessly implies that you are retarded.
Intelligent design is an answer to the question of "why" the universe exists. It is one of several. Intelligent design does not argue with evolution, it posits a "why" for the evolution we see in science.
Creationism, by contrast, is a faultily based attempt to force a misunderstood translation of the Bible as a substitute for the evolution that we can see as a mechanism for biological change on our planet.
Perhaps you should figure out what the hell you're talking about before opening your trap. You might have to deal with nasty people who do not suffer fools - like me. Mr. Clayton wrote an intelligent critique. Your comments are anything but intelligent.
12 - Bennett
"unyielding belief" = "total suspension of critical thinking"
13 - BobC
Michael Clayton said "However, I do take great offense at the censorship of such theories, for I do not support the concept of censorship in general."
What censorship? Didn't you just make a complete fool out of yourself for the entire world to see? Did anyone stop you from saying you want to invoke magic?
The problem is when you morons who believe in magic want to stick your breathtaking stupidity into science education.
Not allowing the opinions of uneducated idiots like yourself into science education is not censorship. It's just common sense. We don't allow people who can't add two numbers together to decide what is taught in a math class. For the same reason we don't let uneducated hicks like Michael Clayton decide what's taught in a biology class. Scientists and science teachers write science curriculums. For a good reason we don't let creationists, with their tiny defective brains, and their total ignorance of science, stick their childish insane magic into biology classrooms.
By the way Michael Clayton, you got a lot of nerve to call intelligent design magic a scientific theory. Your belief that Mr. God created every species out of nothing is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's nothing more than a religious belief, believed only by lazy, gullible, stupid, insane, uneducated religious extremists.
14 - BobC
Ruvy said "Intelligent design is an answer to the question of 'why' the universe exists. It is one of several. Intelligent design does not argue with evolution, it posits a 'why' for the evolution we see in science."
Intelligent design was invented to replace evolution. It's nothing more than creationism. Anyone who denies ID magic is creationism is a liar. You, Ruvy, are a liar.
Ruvy, who is the designer? Who is the magical fairy who does all the designing and magically creating?
Your fairy only lives in your tiny defective brain. I suggest you should grow up and educate yourself, and stop lying about what intelligent design is.
Your "intelligent design does not argue with evolution" is lying. Why do you think the clowns of the Discovery Institute are always invoking intelligent design magic to replace the natural mechanisms of biological evolution?
I don't care about your stupidity, Ruvy. But your dishonesty is disgusting.
Just keep your childish intelligent design magic out of our schools. I'm sick and tired of Christian attacks against science education. You can do your religious brainwashing in your churches. If you can't respect the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, then get out of my country.
15 - Thom
One of the first sections of Stein's argument explored in the film is the exclusion and extermination of the intelligent design theory on the campuses of many prestigious colleges and universities. Stein reveals that there have been countless professors and theorists who have been unceremoniously removed from their university positions. In each instance, the reason for their termination was attributed to the individual's interest and/or belief in the theory of intelligent design. This fact in itself is one that should cause alarm among many.
In each instance??
Anyone who pursues the facts behind the five "expelled" will find that's a bunch of nonsense. Look at the Wikipedia entry for
Expelled No Intelligence
and you'll see summaries, with footnotes, of each story. Most egregious is the story of Richard Sternberg, who the movie claims was "fired" by the Smithsonian. Nonsense! Sternberg NEVER EVER WORKED for that institution; he had and still has a volunteer position with them.
The movie questions why Guillermo Gonzalez's writings on ID were considered in his application for tenure. There's an easy answer to that one: he submitted them as part of his application!
There is a dreadfully protracted piece in the film that's based on a quote from Darwin. Unfortunately, it's not actually Darwin's words; it's a gross distortion that came about by cherry-picking a quotation. Both Darwin's words and the filmmaker's distortions are shown on the webpage.
This movie failed to fact-check its most fundamental claims. It is an embarrassment. I strongly suggest that anyone look over the Wikipedia page first before spending a dime on this movie.
Don't even get me started about the *fake* lecture -- with standing ovation -- of a lecture hall that's populated with paid extras. Sheesh.
16 - Dr Dreadful
BobC:
I also disagree with Ruvy's definition of 'intelligent design', but he is right. You're not doing yourself or the cause of science any favors with your rudeness.
The errors in the creationists'/IDers' arguments can easily be shown up for what they are without resorting to personal abuse. Play nice or go away.
ASSISTANT COMMENTS EDITOR
17 - Andy Marsh
You see though how nasty the argument gets?
I'm not gonna try to defend a film I've never seen, but I would never try to defend one using wikipedia as my source material...
...just a thought.
And one more thing...if it's a Ben Stein movie I would go for the comedic value, who cares if the story is true or not...
18 - duane
A little hostile for an intellectual discussion, ain't it?
Michael, that was a very well written article, better than most on this topic. You make a number of excellent points that deserve to be calmly and patiently shot down. But this attack dog stuff from some of the commentators doesn't help.
Many intelligent people believe in intelligent design, and Michael just happens to be one of them.
19 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Many intelligent people believe in intelligent design, and Michael just happens to be one of them.
Still ID is pure belief without scientific evidence.
Comment #1 points this out perfectly and that should have been the end of the discussion. Until the religious community can draw up a hypothesis that can be tested then ID has no place in the classroom and should not be considered science!
Remember, The burden of proof falls on those that believe.
20 - Ruvy
Bob,
I told you you might find yourself dealing with some nasty people who will not suffer fools gladly, and indeed you are. Not only have you got me to contend with, you have the Assistant Comments Editor telling you to play nice, and Duane, a scientist who does not agree with me at all, telling you the same thing.
First of all, I don't give a rat's ass about your first amendment. I understand the constitution of 1787 a hell of a lot better than you do to begin with; I'm a writer with a political scientist's training, and an editor. But your constitution doesn't apply to me at all.
Second of all, I'm no Christian. Try reading this article to get a better perspective of my point of view. It should answer many if not most of your pathetic "assertions". Finally, I left the United States in 2001, never to return, G-d willing. You can shout "love it or leave it" to somebody else. I just don't give a damn. I left already. Your country will sink into bankruptcy in the near future and it ain't my problem.
Duane and the Assistant Comments Editor probably disagree with my point of view, and they're entitled to. Having not seen Ben Stein's film, I'm not qualified to defend or argue with it.
But speaking to you as one who has had to judge character for a living, I can tell you that Michael Clayton, in writing this review, is not a liar. He has given you full disclosure of his own views and possible prejudices in this review, something he would not have done if he was being deceitful. And he has written intelligently and well, arguing issues of censorship, not the merits of intelligent design.
Now to return to the basic arguments, I said that "intelligent design" attempts to answer the "why" posited by evolution, and it is one of several answers. There are others, embraced by folks like Duane.
Finally, should "intelligent design" be taught as "science"? That all depends on where the science curriculum of the school is going. It depends on how far into metaphysics the physics department is willing to travel. Intelligent design tries to present a "why", an answer that I do not think can be scientifically proven. In my opinion, science should stay out of metaphysics as much as possible - metaphysics will intrude on science without scientists wandering in without training.
A simple example of this is finding neutrinos, along with all sorts of other sub-atomic particles that leave tracks when atoms get smashed. They ain't nowhere to be found. They can be inferred, but that is as far as you get with them. That inference is what I mean by metaphysics forcing itself on science.
21 - Thom
I'm not gonna try to defend a film I've never seen, but I would never try to defend one using wikipedia as my source material...
...just a thought.
Why not? The Wikipedia is perfect for seeing something like the gross distortion of the Darwin quote: phrases removed, entire sentences missing, etc. It's also perfect for seeing the actual details of the "expelled" -- where the movie got its basic facts wrong.
BTW: I'm not defending the film. I am giving it a flunking grade. And I did see it. Any documentary having so many fundamental factual errors is am embarrassment.
And one more thing...if it's a Ben Stein movie I would go for the comedic value, who cares if the story is true or not...
If you're expecting anything remotely funny, you've come to the wrong place.
The big comedic moment in the film comes when Ben asks directions on the street for the "Discovery Institute" and nobody knows where it is. That didn't get a single yuck from the entire audience.
Oh. There is one funny moment: when Ben is looking serious at the end of his "lecture" and getting a standing ovation. It is hilarious ... if you know that then entire thing was staged.
That scene was the final insult to the moviegoer's intelligence: one more brick in the wall.
Before you ask: I find Michael Moore's mockumentaries equally revolting. I have no tolerance for any documentary that freely distorts anything and everything.
Before slamming the Wikipedia entry, why don't you go look at it?
22 - Michael Clayton
Bob C, I believe you have a very skewed perception of who I am and what my ideologies are. Do I believe in intelligent design? Certainly. And do I in fact believe in creationism? Sure. But I have also always been open to hearing opinions and ideas to the contrary, for I am not insecure in my beliefs. If anything, I enjoyed reading the perspectives submitted by evolutionists for this particular piece, as most of them are not only intelligent but also open to hearing other arguments, even if those arguments have fundamental differences relating to their own views. I have returned that favor by opening my mind to their opinions and views on man's origins as well. That, I believe is the very basis of intelligent discourse and intellectualism: a friendly debate and transfer of ideas and opinions for the further growth of all involved. If you had a better understanding of who I am as well, you would discover that I am also a constant supporter of ones right to speak freely; I don't believe that intelligent design should be censored, but I also would not censor a Satanists right to speak, as he is privy to the same rights as well, and I don't feel it is my place to censor someone simply because I don't agree with what they are stating. Furthermore, I have actually enjoyed the company of many who do not share my personal world view. Despite their views on religion, I am a avid fan of George Carlin, Sam Kinison, and Bill Hicks, all of whom built their comedic careers on rather controversial views on religion and sundry other topics. While I do not share their views, I can find the humor and intelligence present in their commentaries. And there are many others who have posted rebuttals in a more intelligent manner, and I fervently welcome that. As Voltaire once stated, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
As for the label of "uneducated hick", I find it interesting that I was able to articulate my personal opinions without the use of the word "retard", "moron", and "god-soaked idiot" and I also was able to do so without having a number of my postings censored for personal attacks. And while I stated before that I am not a fan of censorship, and in fact I would not have objected to your full messages being presented before me, I also respect the open forum that Blogcritics provides that allows us to debate topics in a intellectual manner, and therefore adhering any rules that they have put forth is perfectly acceptable in that instance for me.
23 - Wes Gordon
That academia is biased against proponents of ID was well demonstrated by on-camera comments of evolutionists themselves in Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed. Actually it is difficult to deny. Of course, neither theory is provable by scientific standards, and no definitively transitional species has ever been uncovered among many thousands of fossils collected since Darwin's theory was articulated. He himself said his theory would rise or fall based on that evidence, so he, an Anglican clergyman, if he were alive today would probably say, "Looks like I was wrong!" Both theories require faith to accept, but ID is far more predictive of what actually occurs in nature and better comports with truly known science. That is a fact.
24 - Thom
Wes Gordon wrote:
That academia is biased against proponents of ID was well demonstrated by on-camera comments of evolutionists themselves in Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed.
It would be difficult to come to any conclusion based on the short comments from the biologists in this movie. Just as the moviemakers [provably] mis-quoted Darwin, it's a near-certainty that they cherry-picked their quotations from these scientists from hours of interviews.
Have you heard: the filmmakers made those interviews under a false pretense? They claimed to be making a documentary called "Crossroads". They even claimed that they changed the name of the documentary after the interviews were conducted to “Expelled.” However, the smoking gun " the domainname “expelledthemovie.com” " was registered on March 2, 2007 (before any of the interviews happened for this movie.
The domain “crossroadsthemovie.com” was never ever registered until after the movie was in the can. The website on the “crossroads” domain now documents this little deceit. How poetic.
Actually it is difficult to deny.
The only thing that the comments prove is that if you launch a series of interviews under a false pretense and quote a handful of sentences out of context, you’re sure to create something that will upset somebody.
Wes: if you think there’s an atmosphere of bias in the scientific community, how come the stories of the five “expelled” individuals don’t stand up to a basic fact-check?
Do you think that the portrayal of *any* of those five stories in the film is accurate? If so, which one?
Of course, neither theory is provable by scientific standards
Creationism/ID is not a theory. It is a conjecture: a dogmatic statement that, by its nature can never ever be proven. It is based in beliefs and has none of the properties of theories: measurability, testability, repeatability, predictability.
All of science is based on theories. “Provable by scientific standards” is an oxymoron. Gravity is only a theory; we have never ever been able to detect the Higgs Boson, the particle that, based on the theories of the fundamental forces, mediates gravity.
and no definitively transitional species has ever been uncovered among many thousands of fossils collected since Darwin's theory was articulated.
I have no idea what this means. All sorts of transitional species have been found through the years. What exact gaps are you talking about?
You do realize: there is no Fossil Central that species go in order to create a fossil record. Fossils always happen by accident; it’s predictable that the fossil record will never ever be incomplete. And more fossil records are being uncovered all the time.
Both theories require faith to accept
Repeating your claim that Creationism/ID is a theory does not make it one.
but ID is far more predictive of what actually occurs in nature
Can you please provide a single Internet reference where ID predicts anything about the mechanisms of biology?
and better comports with truly known science. That is a fact.
No. It’s just dogma. Repeating dogma does not make it true.
I find an irony: many of the Creationist/ID crowd talk about “having an open mind.” However, when we get into these discussions, that’s exactly the same crowd that just repeats dogmatic statements with no evidence or thought behind them.
Please address the major question I asked: Do you think that the portrayal of *any* of those five stories in the film is accurate? If so, which one?
Thanks, Wes!
25 - Bennett
Gosh Duane, that's awefull nice of you.
;-]