Big Science: The Sound of One Hand Clapping

One of the problems with writing a review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is that it will fall on too many deaf ears. Before seeing it yesterday, I read one complete review and several excerpts of reviews from prominent news journals bashing it. The falsehoods and misinterpretations I came across made me want to respond but reading some of these angry-sounding reviews also made me think that a truthful response isn’t what this crowd wants. As appealing as debates sometimes are as an information source, they don’t seem particularly effective in turning people against whatever belief they came in with. In the end, I suppose the best debates, even if ineffective, happen between friends, who have less pride at stake. No bloggers involved and you still part as friends.

Here’s the synopsis of Expelled. Ben Stein shows us that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired for believing that there might be evidence of design in nature instead of accidental and random chance.

I recommend this film because it’s a comprehensive look at the suppression of scientific freedom that’s going on. It’s also an entertaining film. Let me get the film’s mechanics out of way first. Director Frankowski keeps what is essentially a film of interviews interesting with good camerawork. Wide-angle lenses (including fisheye) and time lapse photography always entertain me (I suppose that’s something of a confession). The framing of the interviews changes enough without being distracting. Frankowski and editor Simon Tondeur use archival footage well throughout the film for both humor and pathos, intercut to drive home various points. Andy Hunter and Robbie Bronnimann complement the pacing with a good soundtrack, and Stein keeps things humorous by being himself.

All of these kudos can be reversed, of course, if you’re an antitheistic evolutionist. I’ve read reviews that criticize the elements above as irritants in the service of an over-the-top propaganda piece.


So, the Debate:

• The evolutionists in the film don’t see Intelligent Design as science, nor do they see Darwinism failing to meet any of the same criteria by which they judge ID. They don’t know how life originated, yet they know it wasn’t designed.
• The Intelligent Design (ID) advocates want equal time in labs and classrooms with the simple proposition that people be allowed to choose which theory makes more sense.

The reigning attitude of the evolutionist scientists interviewed seems surly, defensive, and annoyed. One scientist seems irritated at hearing Stein repeat his question on how living tissue was formed from non-living matter, yet the response he gives is only “one hypothesis,” and that of something as strange and hard to grasp as cells piggy-backing onto crystal formations. This in my opinion summarizes the anti-ID stance in Expelled, short on answers, long on attitude. When legitimate questions are asked about holes in evolutionary theory, the response is one of exasperation instead of a coherent answer. ID advocates in the film are treated as naïve children or as a religious menace but many of the “Big Science” names left me incredulous with some of their assertions. Richard Dawkins, the most prominent evolution voice interviewed in the film, has the most remarkable responses at the end of the film.
It's a random point, but Stein’s uniquely comatose demeanor is well-suited to interviewees that want to be heard and not interrupted.

A couple more random points and I'm done (It's already a day late and 10pm on Sunday night).

In comparing notes with both my pastor and my wife, and in assessing Roger Friedman’s review, I’ve drawn the conclusion that the more you know about this debate going into the film, the more linear the structure will seem. Still it’s worth a viewing if you can learn one new thing in this debate.

In the film, Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute makes the point that ID is not a Christian movement. People of different faiths, including agnostics, are involved in the support of ID research and education. However, according to many evolution exclusivists, ID can’t be science because it’s “religion” (Never mind the categorical overlap if the creator of all life is worthy of praise). However, religion needs to be clearly defined for the evolution lobby to make a case with it. “Creationism” is a religious term used derogatorily in the film by evolution scientists to put ID in its place (privatized and separate from science) but religion itself doesn’t necessitate God or even ID. After all, the US Supreme Court has stated that even Secular Humanism is a religion.

It is my hope that in the next few days I’ll continue this post with some interesting points from Norm Geisler’s and Frank Turek’s book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. I’d written off writing a review of this book, but it’d be nice to review the portions I highlighted, and continue with posts a little deeper than:

“We sucked two boogers out of the pooklet’s nose today.”