Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed belongs to that most intriguing of film genres: the documentary. By dictionary definition, a documentary is "a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event." You might not agree with what some of them have to say, but viewers could just as well admire their overall presentation instead. But there's nothing admirable about Expelled. As sloppy an excuse for filmmaking as there has ever been, it's more of an anti-documentary than anything, providing neither facts nor any semblance of a valid argument. To say Expelled is a half-hearted venture is to infer that any effort at all was put into creating it.
From the start, Expelled ignites a fire of controversy. Its basis is one of the most touchy topics of our times: the validity of intelligent design as a scientific theory. But don't expect a heated debate between those in this camp and those who adhere to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Expelled is a card-carrying member of the former troupe, setting out on a mission to show that the scientific community should equally embrace intelligent design. Heading up this daring expedition is a rather unlikely figurehead: Ben Stein, of Ferris Bueller's Day Off fame, who jet-sets across the globe to interview those shunned for their beliefs. The portrait the picture paints of those scientists who believe in Darwin's findings is a dark one indeed, that of academic bullies ready to suppress any dissenting opinions. But Stein and company aren't going down without a fight, determined to stick to their guns and prove that intelligent design holds up just fine in the world of science.
What's the problem? Well, Expelled never gets around to doing that. In not a single one of its 97 minutes does the film provide a valid argument as to why intelligent design should be accepted. Instead, Expelled spends its time depicting those who oppose it as being part of an atheistic conspiracy to rid the world of all religious thoughts. This movie discusses Darwinists the same way that Ann Coulter refers to liberals, as if they all travel in packs just waiting to pounce on and discredit anyone who disagrees with them. Virtually the entire film is one story after another about how the big, bad scientific community is out to put the kibosh on anyone in the academic world who dares even mention intelligent design. But Expelled does nothing to counter its subject's detractors, rather trying to win its argument not by being right but by making the competition look as bad as possible.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - BobC
"But these people are all that Expelled talks to, and using figures like Richard Dawkins to represent the entire scientific community is like saying Charles Manson is indicative of all Californians."
I'm an atheist and I don't appreciate your comparison of the most prominent atheist in the world to a murderer.
You should know that atheists are the only normal people in the world. Everyone else believes there's a magic fairy hiding the clouds, which is an extremely childish and insane belief.
2 - A.J. Hakari
Many apologies if you've been offended; I'm not out to bash anyone for their beliefs. But I do want you to know that I put that line in there half for comedic value and half to put my thoughts into context. Do I actually think Richard Dawkins is another Charles Manson? Of course not. I may not necessarily share his beliefs, but I meant no harm in writing that line.
3 - Dan
"But Expelled does nothing to counter its subject's detractors, rather trying to win its argument not by being right but by making the competition look as bad as possible."
The "competition" makes itself look bad. That's the point of the film.
The film wasn't designed to argue the validity of intelligent design.
Instead, it attempts to demonstrate that there is a significant body of objective, credible scientists who do recognize the scientific validity of intelligent design, and are persecuted for it.
4 - A.J. Hakari
I'll give you the fact that the film's concentration was moreso on highlighting the persecution of these individuals, not so much on trying to validate intelligent design itself.
But shouldn't that be part of the equation? The film spends so much time (pretty much ALL of its time) condemning those who condemned the idea of taking intelligent design on as a scientific theory, wouldn't it be natural for the film to also provide a reason other than, "Because"?
I see where you're coming from, but personally, I needed more than a few bad eggs in the scientific community (since I'm positive not all Darwin-leaning scientists are like those featured in the film, nor do I suspect a conspiracy among them) to convince me that intelligent design deserves a shot. When the film comes along that addresses that topic, I will be more than happy to give it a watch.
Until then, "Expelled" is no different than those right-leaning, post-"Fahrenheit 9/11" documentaries that did everything possible to make Michael Moore look bad but countered next to none of his claims.
5 - Dan
I'm not sure what topic you wanted addressed. If you expected the film to do something that it wasn't intended to do, then I guess you'd be dissapointed.
I thought the film did a pretty good job of exposing several conspiring bad eggs.
I'm not saying that there aren't bad eggs on the other side, just that it's a two way street. I think the film demonstrated Atheist zealotry in the scientific community.
I expect there will be more atheist zealotry demonstrated on this thread.
6 - JosephU
For those who have not yet seen the Ben Stein documentary: EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed to view 3 movie trailers and a Bill O'Reilly interview.
7 - Brenda Tucker
I am watching from a backseat because I have a new theory of evolution that I am working to publicize and I have contacted many, many authors, Dawkins included, as well as people with the Intelligent Design movement and none of them have been able or willing to help by working with me to get my story told.
If you don't believe me, you can search on the word: girasas and find debates, internet posts, etc. where I have attempted to find an audience. Please also read my web page for more about this new theory.
I began my college years with a major in psychology, tried to study THE SECRET DOCTRINE with a World Religions professor and gave up. I dropped out of college and pursued the subject of a "path" and "masters" within The Theosophical Society and within The Saint Germain Foundation.
This new theory of evolution should have media attention, but how do I manage to get the necessary coverage as I do not represent a university, a town, or any of the groups I studied with?
Watching the documentary on netflix just prior to finding this review, I noticed how fascinated I was with the travels between interviews (nice touch), the animation of the inner workings of a cell (wonder where that came from?), and the fact that my note taking comprised 9 pages with names, colleges, and other data. I collect names so that I can contact them. I already contacted Eugenia Scott and Richard Dawkins.
I know that some of what Ben Stein is trying to prove is correct because I have spoken out to diverse groups of people since 1995. I know that people who commit themselves to science - even when not scientists - are very passionate about their perceived calling.
I also liked the films concept of using checkpoints by which to pass from unknown (and unwarranted) into ease of speech regarding a new theory. Stein's research went from bias in scientific circles into bias in journalism when he mentioned the case of Pamela Winnick (I was able to write down the number of minutes into the video and review parts of it for extra clarity.)
And we should all be thankful that our reviewer, A.J. Hakari, does take a stance like he did - displeased antagonist - because if he doesn't take that kind of stand, he might follow the career path of those in this documentary.
I have worked the media angle and am stunned by the lack of interest in "Supreme Court material" which affects all of us who send children to school. You call this a debate? I call it a filibuster to see how long we can go without pursuing other courses of action than that currently prescribed.
8 - Bob
I have just finished watching the documentary. Ben Stein brings out the very, very important point of intellectual freedom, a hallmark of our democracy.
Even if Intelligent Design is wrong, scientists who disagree with Evolution (neo Darwinism today) should not be censored for their viewpoints (the surety of losing your job is very effective in censuring opposing viewpoints against evolution).
If the National Acadamy of Science is so dead set against Intelligent Design, my question is why are they so afraid of it? This reminds me of the Powers in charge (the Church) censuring Galileo for his ideas.
Now, has the National Acadamy of Science become the new all powerful worldwide church of the 21st century?
And why is it journalists automatically side with the National Acadamy without question. Is the National Acadamy now God with with omnipotent powers?
And why is it rather than discuss the questions that Intelligent Design brings up against evolution, it completely diverts the discussion to Intelligent Design attempting to bring religion back into the schools and completely avoiding the possible flaws in evolutionary theory. What are evolutiontionists really afraid of???
9 - Christopher Rose
Bob, you seem to be rather confused. Let me help you out...
Disagreeing with the theory of evolution is not the same thing as believing in intelligent design. There is zero evidence in support of this latter idea, which is why its supporters aren't taken seriously.
Being set against ID is not the same as being afraid of it. To claim, as you do, that it reminds you of when the Catholic establishment attacked Galileo is offensive to any rational person.
No, the NAS has not become a church - and it never will.
Journalists tend to side with those who can support their claims but even then there are many who support the ID contention.
ID proponents should concentrate on trying to prove its case, not attacking other ideas. If ID can be substantiated, that will weaken the evolutionary majority in and of itself.
Intelligent Design IS trying to bring religion back into schools. Scientific thinkers are always looking to test and prove the theory of evolution. That's what reason is all about. It's also why it is called a theory and not a law.
10 - zingzing
this movie is just one big hissy-fit. are they really all that mad that SCIENTISTS won't allow RELIGIOUS STUDIES in the SCIENCE CLASSROOM? it's science! where does it say "religion" in "science?" teach it in sunday school if you want. they won't laugh at you there... they'll just snooze through it.
ben stein and his ilk want to shove religion where it's not wanted, and then they get all mad when people are less than receptive. it's fuckin stupid. pick your target, i say.
it's like rubbing a dead cat in someone's face. no one wants it there.
11 - Bob
Christopher,
You can disagree with the theory of evolution by providing evidence for intelligent design. Evolutionists 'believe' in the theory of evolution because of the evidence for it.
Zero evidence for intellingent design is a bold statement. I don't think the theory of evolution is perfected to that point yet or ever will be.
Galileo was 'attacked' by the establishment of his day. The NAS squashes any attempt by recognized scientists to disagree with the theory of evolution. The NAS is the establishment of today. If you read anymore into what I am saying then you are mistaken.
I totally agree that ID proponent should provide evidence for their case. On the other hand, whenever I read articles about ID, the articles quckly degenerate into accusing the ID proponents of trying force religion into schools and completely ignoring the evidence that they might have provided. It is like just using the words 'Intelligent Design' must mean it has to be about religion.
Scientists are always trying to test and prove the theory of evolution and the consideration of anything else is an abomination I suppose. I always thought that the pinnacle of scientific thought was HONEST and unbiased thinking, not excluding anything from possibility. I guess scientists are human and capable of prejudice like anyone else...
12 - Mark Saleski
completely ignoring the evidence that they might have provided
uhm...that would be because there is no evidence.
13 - Christopher Rose
That confusion just won't clear up will it, Bob?
"You can disagree with the theory of evolution by providing evidence for intelligent design." WRONG!
The establishment of the day has changed. so your comparison doesn't make sense.
14 - Dr Dreadful
Bob,
There is no scientific evidence to support the theory of a designer, and to be frank I don't see how there even could be, short of, say, the discovery of his signature in a glacier in Norway*.
I've read one or two papers by the scientists who were discussed in the movie, and there just isn't any way to remove anthropic bias from their inferences and deductions.
It's kind of like coming across a termite mound, and concluding that the creatures who built it must be intelligent because humans build high-rises.
* Or - an alternative literary allusion here - Carl Sagan, in his wonderful novel Contact, suggested the fascinating notion that a Designer might hide his 'signature' deep in the natural laws of the universe, in such a way that only creatures advanced enough to get their heads around the implications without them exploding could discover it. The hypothetical example he proposed was an unmistakeably artificial code buried countless trillions of decimal places inside the value of pi.
15 - BobC
A theory is the highest level of understanding in science, higher than an hypothesis, higher than a law, higher than facts. The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution. The basic facts of evolution are the strongest facts of science. For example the fact that people and chimps share an ancestor has more evidence and stronger evidence than the fact that the earth orbits the sun.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Intelligent design is nothing more than an idiotic childish belief in magic. Anyone who thinks intelligent design magic has any value is an uneducated god-soaked hick.
Expelled is a religious propaganda movie. Expelled complains about discrimination against people who believe in the breathtaking stupidity of intelligent design magic. Of course the intelligent design idiots are discriminated against. Anyone who believes in intelligent design magic (IDM) is mentally disturbed and a disgrace to the human race. A belief in IDM is equivalent to a belief in a flat earth. These morons deserve nothing but ridicule and contempt.
16 - Lee Bowman
Bob is correct. NAS has taken a fascist position, regarding alternate hypotheses regarding the 'method' of phylogenetic progressions. To bolster their case, they cite the YEC religious positions, ignoring alternate hypotheses such as ID, based solely on design inferences. Further, they have taken steps to enforce the purely naturalistic position by fascist means. That was what the movie was about, and I'll give them three stars for their efforts.
The current ID synthesis is secular rather than religious, and will be verifiable via statistical models. NS or RM is essentially falsified, due to a failure to empirically demonstrate it. The examples of drosophila speciating is based merely on failure to be able to reproduce between altered 'species', and is not speciation in the true sense.
Does the phyletic tree, with a few purported transitionals validate evolution? Yes, but not the method. Do homologies prove common descent? Common designer(s) perhaps. If not, where does the data point? How do we explain homologies between 'unrelated taxa', where serial evolution could not occur, the vertebrate (and invertebrate) eyes being a good example? The dated prediction of natural selection of random mutations producing all biologic phyla has essentially been falsified, simply due to the lack of empirical verification, and the outright absurdity of its premise.
But again, that wasn't what the movie was about. Rather it was about the fascist position that institutional science has adopted regarding alternate hypotheses regarding the *method* of change beyond species.
17 - Lee Bowman
"Disagreeing with the theory of evolution is not the same thing as believing in intelligent design."
Actually, the neo-ID synthesis accepts evolution, but in an altered form. We can say, however, that ID differs from the current synthesis since it proposes design, or simply intervention in the genomic process to initiate radical change. Since alterations are spread out over vast (to us) time periods, and to explain predator/ prey and parasite/ host questions, there may have been multiple designers, working together or separately, and under a central authority (or not). It is likely that evolved designs used prior body plans, but with modification, as homologies suggest.
Naturalistic evolution is appealing from the point of view of simplicity, and freedom from unknown entities (or God), but is vacuous based on the data. Like it or not, biologic life shows evidence of design.
"Journalists tend to side with those who can support their claims but even then there are many who support the ID contention."
Most liberal journalists side with evo in its current form, since they are opposed to the 'religious right', who they conflate with the ID movement. They love to quote Dover v. Kitzmiller, the Wedge Document, and what they consider to be religious remarks by certain ID advocates. That makes it a political issue with them, rather than considering the ID position based on a more valid interpretation of the evidence.
"ID proponents should concentrate on trying to prove its case, not attacking other ideas. If ID can be substantiated, that will weaken the evolutionary majority in and of itself."
And with further research, that will occur. I predict that the new generation of scientists will be more open to ID, and that many will already has the basics of biology down cold prior to college (the Internet as source). If ID is false, no harm will be done to science. If not, then we will see change. Oh, and antibiotics will still work!
18 - Lee Bowman
My response to various comments ...
"ben stein and his ilk want to shove religion where it's not wanted, and then they get all mad when people are less than receptive."
You did know that he's not a Christian, or particularly religious, didn't you? Or did the 'religious right' put him up to it?
"... completely ignoring the evidence that they might have provided ... uhm...that would be because there is no evidence."
There is statistical evidence. Modeling so far has acted to falsify natural selection, except within species and for adaptive changes. Additional design validations will likely be developed, once barriers to research are lowered.
"You can disagree with the theory of evolution by providing evidence for intelligent design." WRONG!"
It's not disagreement in toto; just disagreement with the random premise.
"I've read one or two papers by the scientists who were discussed in the movie, and there just isn't any way to remove anthropic bias from their inferences and deductions."
I hear anthropomorphic biases from religionists, and it's backed by scripture as well, i.e. that man was God's intentioned creation, and is supreme over all other life. God is also depicted as human like (or we as god like) in some ways.
Mankind appears to have come way late in the phylogenetic process, as evidenced by the fossil record. ID does not address anthropomorphism; merely design evidences.
"Carl Sagan, in his wonderful novel Contact, suggested the fascinating notion that a Designer might hide his 'signature' deep in the natural laws of the universe, in such a way that only creatures advanced enough to get their heads around the implications without them exploding could discover it."
Maybe direct evidence of a Creator (or designer/ gene tweakers) was intended to be kept in the dark. If 'faith based', how could it be otherwise?
"The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution. The basic facts of evolution are the strongest facts of science. For example the fact that people and chimps share an ancestor has more evidence and stronger evidence than the fact that the earth orbits the sun."
The evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in chimps and humans may point to a common ancestor, but does not disqualify design in the alterations of the two species, nor does it validate naturalistic mutational sources of re-design, so to speak.
"Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Intelligent design is nothing more than an idiotic childish belief in magic."
ID makes predictions, which *modify* the current ND theory. Methods of innovative change (not adaptational changes), are hypothetical in both ID *and* RM/NS.
19 - Bob
Those of you who watched the movie may remember that Richard Dawkins said that he did believe in at least the possibility of intelligent design in the development of life on our own planet, with the precondition that the designers were intelligent physical beings who themselves evolved by natural means.
My point is this: intelligent design or some intelligent design of life on our planet is at least a possibility that shouldn't be ruled because of anti-religious bias.
The premise of the theory of evolution is that only natural causes and processes will be used in determining how life came to be on our planet.
So that premise rules out any supernatural causes for life but still misses the possibility of intelligent design by another, more advanced species.
20 - Dr Dreadful
Like it or not, biologic life shows evidence of design.
Such as?
Maybe direct evidence of a Creator (or designer/ gene tweakers) was intended to be kept in the dark. If 'faith based', how could it be otherwise?
So if there is not and cannot be any direct evidence of a Creator, what is the use of intelligent design as a theory?
Let me make another attempt at explaining my point. ID proponents will offer you a wealth of examples of things in the natural world which they say show evidence of design. And to be sure, something like the vertebrate eye (an oft-cited example) does look as if it might have been designed - to a human.
The only verifiable examples of intelligent design we have at this point in time are artifacts that were built by humans. So the tendency is to ascribe design to complex natural objects because that's the way we might have done it.
So your alternatives with, say, the eye, are an active designer, which is unverifiable without bias, or evolution by natural processes. Certainly a designer might have directed its evolution. But without reliable evidence for that proposition, what practical difference does it make if he/she/it did?
Occam's Razor must be applied here.
21 - Bob
Whether an eye was created or it evolved can only be inferred by indirect evidence. No one was there watching when the first eye came into being to see it evolving into existence or being 'magically' created. It may possible to demonstrate the steps on how an eye evolved but that cannot prove that is how an eye came into existence.
The claim of evolution is, all things considered, the eye evolving is the most plausible way.
22 - BobC
Why do the creationist retards here keep talking about "design" when what they really mean is "magic"?
23 - Lee Bowman
" ... biologic life shows evidence of design."
"Such as?"
Basically, all of it. Even purported 'bad designs' show evidences, i.e. the mammalian esophagus, with its multi-functionality (epiglottis et al). Unfortunately, it develops esophageal varices which can eventually rupture in humans after a life of heavy drinking. But does it matter? We are not our DNA. We merely inhabit it.
"So if there is not and cannot be any direct evidence of a Creator, what is the use of intelligent design as a theory?"
ID, as a modified hypothesis to evolutionary theory, does not seek to validate a creator (or God), although some may use ID in an attempt to cleanse their religionist motives. The school board in Dover PA did just that, and when asked to define ID could not. Ken Ham tolerates ID, but disavows it, at least privately, since he feels it degrades his God. He holds to the YEC timescale, Biblical literalism, and the 'poof' scenario, which I, and most ID'ers do not.
Can you imagine what it would be like if an overseeing entity (or entities) advertised their presence? A face in the clouds, a voice in the dark, an email signed "your overseer" would intimidate and frankly scare the hell (pun intended) out of folks. Instead, biologic life forms have at least an element of 'free will', and the propensity to decide faith issues based on 'faith', not proof.
The central 'prediction' of ID focuses on an extension of science, not into the supernatural however, since spirit forms are likely materially based (quark-gluon plasma based perhaps), but rather, to explore the possibility of intervention in natural processes. But again, design v. selection, rather than goddidit v. mutantdidit.
Regarding your point that we view and judge via the 'human filter', granted. That's all we have to work with, and due to abject subjectivism (and motive), we err. You and others point out that religious bias works against objective thought. Same goes for materialists who are heavily invested in the prevailing theory, and/or who despise the idea of a higher power. Scientism is often biased.
Further, and Ritchie D. would agree, Old Testament Mosaic directives from above don't help, and you could argue that Moses did have an agenda. Again, an example of the 'man filter' at work. Biblical literalism is based on the flawed logic that if any one depiction is shown to be false, it is invalidated in toto, a logical fallacy.
Frankly, I view earth as a theme park for a diversion from a cosmic existence, and repeatable. Call it a sabbatical from the cosmos. If so, earth borne problems diminish somewhat, since it's apparent that earthbound experience was never intended to be Utopian.
But back to our subjective interpretation of order, synergy of systems, complexity, functional designs, etc, while not perfect, it's what we have to work with. If we work at removing 'motivational' roadblocks, we can approach objectivity. Skeptics tout 'rational thought' as theirs alone, but many skeptics are heavily biased, and therefore lack the very objectivity they profess. I have no motives either way, just a penchant for clear and unbiased views. Not easy.
"Occam's Razor must be applied here."
In Occam's day, it seemed logical. It's a conjectural basis to begin with, but then requires validation. To properly apply it, one would need to know all of the details and requirements of a process, and we seldom do. So we apply parsimony, eliminating some necessary component, and come to a false conclusion in most cases. The emphasis on parsimony does work in many human situations (go the low road, cut the flack), but tends to fail miserably in validating scientific processes.
Yes, complexity seems to be endemic around here ...
24 - Lee Bowman
"Why do the creationist retards here keep talking about "design" when what they really mean is "magic"?"
How so?
25 - Dr Dreadful
Even purported 'bad designs' show evidences, i.e. the mammalian esophagus, with its multi-functionality...
Again, you are inferring conscious intent from functionality. You are still assuming, because all the functional objects which we know for sure were designed have an intelligent designer - us - that this must also be true of biological systems.
We are not our DNA. We merely inhabit it.
Your personal DNA is specific to yourself. It is what causes you to be the being you are. If you are not your DNA, then what are you? It sounds like you are postulating the existence of a soul here, which is another discussion entirely.
Can you imagine what it would be like if an overseeing entity (or entities) advertised their presence? A face in the clouds, a voice in the dark, an email signed "your overseer" would intimidate and frankly scare the hell (pun intended) out of folks.
Exactly. Hence Sagan's idea that a species would need to demonstrate considerable intellectual maturity to be able to cope with that knowledge.
Indeed, Sagan's pi scenario was simplified: it was suggested by the alien species in the novel (who were themselves still seeking the Creator) as an analogy of what a designer's signature might look like - with the caveat that it would probably be concealed in a far more sophisticated way even than that!
Instead, biologic life forms have at least an element of 'free will', and the propensity to decide faith issues based on 'faith', not proof.
So why, then, the anxiety for scientific recognition and the teaching of ID in science classrooms?
Oh, BTW, I wouldn't pay too much attention to BobC. He has a point, but he is rather embarrassing.