Album Reviews
Movie Reviews
Past Movies
Movie Resources
Concert Reviews
Book Reviews

Top 10
Contact Us

Can the near century-old debate over evolution vs creation ever be resolved? Probably not. The new film Expelled attempts to state its case for intelligent design--a broader term for "creationism"--but will only result in further polarization on this issue. The film begins with the premise that the scientific community has expelled reputable scientists who view any possibility or discussion of an intelligence behind the origins of the universe. Several examples are used to illustrate this idea. It then attempts to draw extreme conclusions, including the inevitable descent from evolution into atheism and even to the Holocaust.

Ben Stein, as narrator, also helps write the film; the use of inter-cut amusing and not-so-amusing clips, are used to reinforce the drama of the story. As Stein delves further into the issue, he is astounded to uncover the scientific bias and historical evidence of fascism in this community of intelligent scientists. This venture leads to an ultimate showdown between Stein and renowned atheist scientist, Richard Dawkins. In this interview, after being asked about the origins of life, Dawkins concedes to the possibility of intelligent design.

Like most films of this kind, the conclusions are convincing, the story is entertaining and engaging, and the editing is especially convincing and creative. The problem here is in terms of originality and the exclusion of much of the actual discussion of this issue. This film uses Michael Moore's work as its model. There is little done to disguise this venue throughout which, like Moore's film, removes it from the pursuit of objectivity to a polemic on the necessity of intelligent design to be regarded a science. Interviews with disgruntled professors are given without divulging all of the facts behind their situations. Richard Dawkins, as a representative of the scientific community, is the most extreme person who could be used in a film like this one. Perhaps less entertaining, but certainly worthy of inclusion, would be the people who fall in the middle. They are out there and a part of the scientific community. There are committed Christians who believe the two views have a degree of compatibility. But this fact is left out of the film in order to build a case against any form of Darwin's theory to be atheistic.

On a positive note, the film invites further investigation and does expose a certain lack of objectivity in the scientific community. Certainly, to question and invite to debate and dialogue is a good and necessary part of our culture. To explore presuppositions is also important. _Expelled_ does expose the unwillingness of the scientific community to do this while maintaining an air of objectivity.

As a starting point,Expelled, gives us a place to begin to explore a view of science that certainly encourages questions--especially regarding the origins of the universe. The question remains: is this a question to be left to religion? It also encourages us to ask question regarding the "how" of the origins of this universe. While this question is best left to scientists, the attempt to expose those scientists, like Dawkins, who wish to jump into theology is certainly successful. But, I am left to wonder, what of the rest of the scientific community? We must explore this idea for ourselves.

Terry Roland April 30, 2008

Perusing through other reviews of this Ben Stein documentary on the Intelligent Design (ID) debate, I noticed to my chagrin that the vast majority of reviewers either never even watched the film or were so blinded by their own lack of objectivity to give a balanced review.  I have the advantage of being an agnostic with respect to macroevolution.  But I lean toward Gerald Schroeder’s Jewish/evolutionist view (as defended in “Genesis and the Big Bang”) that the universe was created in both six days and six billion years, explained by Einstein’s theory of relativity.

This documentary’s triumph is that it puts aside the dishonest contention that ID is the same thing as creationism.  ID might have originated as a “next best effort” on the part of creationists, but it does not require one disbelieve that evolution has worked on the macro-scale.  It merely suggests that time and mutation are not enough by themselves to account for the complexity we see even in a simple cell.  Bill Dembski, one of the leading ID proponents, made this clear.  The film’s only error in this respect was not clearly identifying Schroeder as an evolutionist, even as he was defending ID.

What many viewers may find objectionable is his investigation of the Darwinist foundation of Nazism.  But the umbrage taken will be only to the same extent that one confuses ID with creationism.  Rejecting creationism was one thing.  But when the scientific (or more accurately, naturalist) community rejects ID, it is rejecting more than God creating each species individually 6,000 years ago.  The rejection of ID is rejecting the possibility of God having had any hand whatsoever in the designing of life on earth.  Theologically, this leaves open a weak form of deism at best, and any framework for universal ethical structures is weakened.

My greatest worry in documentaries like this is that they can be used to deceive, as Michael Moore so aptly demonstrated in both Fahrenheit 911 and Bowling for Columbine.  (I did not have the stomach to watch any of his other films after observing his diabolical knack for deception in these two.)  Unfortunately, many of the deceptions can only be detected after the fact by investigating what was omitted.

Some things do appear to be left out as one watches the film, namely a response from those who are accused of firing top-notch science educators and journalists simply for putting ID on the table.  But rest assured, he gets to them eventually.

I would have liked to have seen Richard Dawkins and the other Darwinists here interviewed as to the ethical implications of the rejection of ID, in the context of Stein’s study of the Nazis, though the comments he elicited from one of the death camp curators is telling.  It also would have been nice to see some investigation into the late Stephen Jay Gould who had been persona non grata for so long in the evolutionist community for questioning gradualism in favor of punctuated equilibria, a now more popular view that evolution occurs in spurts.  Furthermore, are there any open ID proponents in secular universities who have recently been given tenure despite their belief in ID?  This might lead one to doubt the premise that they are all being expelled for questioning the prevailing dogma.

Interestingly enough, that is the best way the scientific community could discredit Stein’s key point .  All they need do is march out a long list of recently tenured professors who openly support or even consider ID and make it known to all that they are still welcome, respected, and free to conduct science in the direction they believe the truth lies.  We’re all waiting.
 

( for execution,  because it had to be done)

By Dan Singleton

May 19, 2008