Unintelligently Designed
Expelled fails both as a documentary and as an anti-evolution argument.
By Mike Berlin
June 5, 2008
Ben Stein stars in Expelled. (Photo courtesy Motive Entertainment)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a new documentary from first-time director Nathan Frankowski, features Ben Stein (of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and “Win Ben Stein’s Money”) as the film’s main narrator, allegedly uncovering the conspiracies of Darwinists and the staunch prejudices they hold against intelligent design (ID) scientists. But while Expelled had the potential to discuss the opposing perspectives of evolution, creationism and intelligent design, it fails to do so, leaving the viewer confused by propaganda.
Naturally, one would expect a documentary about intelligent design to explain what ID actually is, but Expelled staunchly refuses to summarize the current state of the debate—inasmuch as there is one—on the theory of evolution. Not once does the audience receive even the slightest explanation of ID or why it’s so controversial. Nor does the film even touch the fundamentals of evolutionary theory that it seeks to debunk.
For practical purposes, let me fill in some blanks. According to the Discovery Institute, a leading organization for ID research, “intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” The conflict between ID and evolution stems from ID’s refutation of the emphasis evolutionary theory puts on natural selection as fueled by random genetic mutations. ID, in short, is a direct descendant of creationism, and there’s nothing creationists hate more than the idea of randomness. Once creationists, stung by a number of court rulings, realized they wouldn’t be able to teach their version of creation in public schools, they morphed their argument into a coyer version—from the assertive “God created every living creature” to the more passive, winking, “certain features…are best explained by an intelligent cause.”
Expelled spends much of its time arguing that there exists an institutionalized prejudice against intelligent design in the “big science” community. As such, the many contemporary scientists who have denounced ID as religiously motivated pseudoscience are portrayed as persecutors, drunk on—and clouded by—their staunch love of Darwinism. But what the film fails to highlight is that ID simply isn’t science. Any scientific theory, by definition, has to be falsifiable—otherwise it can’t be tested and isn’t science. ID isn’t falsifiable: How would one go about proving a complete lack of intelligent design in any biological apparatus, anywhere? This partly explains the lack of peer-reviewed research published in reputable scientific journals to support it. When journals like Darwinism, Design, and Public Education have sprouted up, claiming to be “peer-reviewed,” they have quickly been disavowed by many scientists. Unfortunately, none of this is explained coherently in Expelled. The film simply doesn’t provide an accurate overview of the subject at hand.
What Expelled does provide is smarmy scaremongering via misinformation. Initially, the film runs through a list of six or so scientists who have had their lives “nearly ruined” by the omnipotent heads of “big science” for researching, or even considering, intelligent design a viable option over evolution. This is supposed to be the film’s strongest, most damning point: Look, those scientists are being persecuted as we speak! But one of the film’s main examples of this, which involves researcher Richard Sternberg, is presented in a thoroughly misleading way.
Expelled claims that Sternberg was wrongfully fired from his post at the Smithsonian Institution in 2004 after publishing an intelligent design article by Dr. Stephen Meyer in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a scientific journal he was editing at the time. But Expelled fails to explain the controversy that surrounded this occurrence. Sternberg claimed that the article went under the appropriate processes of peer review by appointing himself as sole reviewer—a no-no that eventually resulted in the article’s retraction. The film argues that Sternberg’s reputation in the scientific community was henceforth ruined, as he was forced out of his position, but it fails to mention Sternberg’s planned resignation prior to publishing the article in question. In also fails to mention that Sternberg wasn’t fully employed by the Smithsonian, but was working at an unpaid research position at the time. In addition, he was offered another unpaid research slot in 2006, two years after the controversial article was published. Granted, the debacle raised serious questions about the peer review process, and was investigated by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform. But the facts are grossly distorted in Expelled, as are all the other cases of “big science” persecution presented in the film. (In an effort to clear up these similar manipulations, the National Center for Science Education launched a comprehensive website, Expelled Exposed, to provide the public with accurate information regarding the film’s flimsy examples.)
Many others have noted the factual inaccuracies and incoherence of Expelled, but the film is even harder to take seriously once you find out how it was made and once you’re exposed to Stein’s infuriating style of “inquiry.” Many scientists who appear in Expelled were initially told they were being questioned for a documentary entitled Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion. This comes through in the interviews: The subjects sound as if they’re being asked questions for an entirely different documentary. Stein is brusque and badgering as a narrator who continuously asks mind-numbingly abstract and aggressive questions of his many guests. Interviews from either side seldom make sense because the producers tend to switch the film’s train of thought on almost a second-by-second basis like some interrupting toddler with ADHD. "But is what is so evil about intelligent design anyway?" Stein asks, followed immediately by clips of scientists laughing about ID research as a waste of time. This overproduction backfires, leading to a narrative that is noticeably muddled and messy.
Another strike against Expelled is its marketing company: Motive Marketing. Responsible for the widely lucrative Passion of the Christ marketing campaign, Motive was enlisted by Expelled to create buzz and revenue through their website, getexpelled.com. The site offers—in addition to free resources for youth leaders, ministries, and educators—a $10,000 prize drawing for schools that submit their groups’ ticket stubs to the site before May 30. The purpose of this giveaway, quoted on the site, is blunt in its religious motivations: “to engage Christian schools and home school groups to get as many students, parents and faculty from their school/group out to be educated on today’s issues discussed in Ben Stein’s new movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.” After reading about the contest—which seems to be marketed to a very specific audience—I wondered if Expelled was even meant to persuade those who aren’t already firm subscribers to its central message. Others, apparently, need not apply.
But setting aside the filmmaker’s motives and its numerous instances of factual inaccuracies—either of which would be enough for me to suggest you spend your ten bucks on a more scientifically accurate film, like Iron Man—the film functions in the basest realm of propaganda. The opening credits set us up with stock footage of Berlin Wall-era Germany to signify the wall which “big science” has constructed to rob all scientists who question evolution of their American freedoms. This subtle-as-a-jackhammer metaphor is beyond contrived, and the film returns to it over and over.
In the same vein, Expelled indicts Darwinists and evolutionary biologists as the unpatriotic zealots and staunchly capitalistic robber barons of science (hence the play on “big business” or “big oil”). And eventually—inevitably?—Stein likens contemporary scientists to Nazis. That’s right, Darwin was the ultimate enabler of Hitler, and eugenics is synonymous with evolution. The film tries to argue that the theories of evolution—that inferior species are systemically weeded out by natural selection—ultimately enabled and inspired Hitler to eradicate what he thought were inferior species. (Just as Newton’s explanation of the laws of gravity later allowed the Japanese to harness this force to drop bombs on Pearl Harbor.) The research Expelled uses to establish this connection is all but absent. Instead, the film follows Stein to concentration camps where he ostensibly mourns the deaths of his ancestors at the cruel hand of Charles Darwin. This appeal to emotions doesn’t work well for a film that is supposedly grounded in science, and is, to say the least, disgracefully manipulative. (I also couldn’t help but notice the religious irony in concentration camps being used to proselytize the coded, but certainly present, fundamentalist Christian connotations of the film).
Perhaps most annoying is the film’s insistence on its own radicalism in any way, shape or form. Stein wants to conjure a modern scenario in which a new sort of McCarthyism has infected science, a field once based on objectivity and questioning. This comes across in the stock footage from 1940s and ’50s propaganda films that try—failingly and predictably—to serve as hilarious interjections throughout. Intelligent design is painted as the underdog—despite its strong Christian ties, and despite the fact that so many Americans already harbor doubts about evolution—and Expelled and Stein try desperately to market themselves as open-minded and rebellious. Maybe they seem that way to those who already believe in ID. But for people looking to learn more about the debate at hand (which really is more cultural than scientific), Expelled is of little value. Its “hidden” agenda is brazenly on display and it leaves out almost all scientific information and signs of critical thought. As such, “No Intelligence Allowed” would be a much more apt description of Expelled’s muddled arguments than of the state of modern life science.
Mike Berlin is a recent graduate of Ithaca College and the former arts & entertainment editor for Buzzsaw magazine, part of the Campus Publications Network. He can be reached at mberlin2@gmail.com
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
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 the a huge fraction – possibly the majority – of the millions who died under those regimes.
Ironically, the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have been better off if their leaders had accepted neo-Darwinian evolution.
— Ray Ingles - Jun 5, 02:42 PM - #Not only did Nazi ideology have nothing to do with evolution, but ti was in fact firmly based on religious ideas of INTELLIGENT DESIGN! It would be funny if not for the fact that it was such a tragedy and that people today actually believe this stuff. For real info see: www.rationalrevoluti…
— rationalrevolution - Jun 5, 03:40 PM - #What possible,scientific inteliigent explanation do you have to refute ID as a logical, possible concept other than sheer denial?
— Ronald Cote - Jun 5, 03:52 PM - #Because ID is by definition unverifiable, Ronald. It’s simply filling in a few gaps with “God, er, “an intelligent creator” did it.”
As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on ID to positively prove itself; relying entirely on the perceived inadequacies of evolution through natural selection doesn’t prove anything.
— For Student Power - Jun 5, 05:34 PM - ##3: The first problem for ID is that, unlike evolution by natural selection, there is no proposed mechanism. What is the mechanism for ID? How does ID happen? When does ID happen?
What set Darwin’s work apart was that he proposed a mechanism for how the process of evolution could work. That mechanism was then verified, it does in fact happen and does in fact work. What is the mechanism for ID? We can see right now today that populations of organisms change and acquire new characteristics. We have a perfectly natural explanation for how that happens and we can verify that it happens according to the explanation: “random” mutation and selection.
Step #1) explain how “intelligent design” works.
— rationalrevolution - Jun 5, 05:49 PM - #he problem with the your-science-is-religion attack comes when a single student wakes up to the fact that evolutionism is more than atheistic; it the central pillar of the faith position called atheism. Our proposition does make sense logically, if you are compelled to accept or assume our premise: there is no God, we observe we are here, and we conclude we made ourselves. Perfect logic! Does that make it correct, scientifically proven and shown as to mechanism? Is it a demonstration of sufficient cause for the effect witnessed?
It’s still all by faith in the authority for the presupposition that our god, noGod, is the one who turns inert matter into living and conscious organisms; that our noGod is the real god. Can you say theology, religion? What if the smarty-pants student sues to move our faith teaching to religion class too?
It is by faith we deny their God made us. The evidence and our common sense say daily: it cannot be. In our experience, functionally complex stuff does not fall together accidentally all the time, or we should be tripping over it everywhere. Spontaneous generation never happens in our world. Just take any rock in your hand. How long would you wait with it before it sprouted a leg or wing? It’s content all the way everyday just doing rock things, the very picture of contentment. If it should ever get bored, how could it do a leg? It lacks the IQ even if it found the willpower. Nothing is “dumber that a box of rocks”, you know.
Then we discovered DNA and blew the Darwinian thing away totally. Everyone agrees it’s language, a bill of materials and list of instructions to make one of us or the entire life cycle of butterfly complete with 6000-mile migration directions to boot. Evolve that in a “scenario” of 1500 words or less!
Speaking of writing, what is DNA again? It’s instructions, our blueprint molecule written in chemical symbols. Language always is the product of a conscious mind. Somebody has to pick the right symbols and place them according to the syntax. Then you need a receiver, a reader for every message sent. Sent entails will, volition—another characteristic of conscious minds. Selling the concept cells formed in Darwin’s “warm little pond”, filled with only rock dust and salt water, gets sticky right there, eh wot? Remember most earthlings still expect their science to be sufficient cause explanations for all observed effects. What do you say to the Information Age nut jobs who keep reading a few chapters ahead and come to class loaded for bear?
Darwinism says no, not God, not your God. It was mere mindless minerals and lots and lots of time. You weren’t there to contradict my thesis, therefore my position is true science and yours is religion. Given enough time, anything you can imagine can happen. You people lack imagination to connect the dots, and that’s why your position is religious. We write “scenarios” explaining everything we see and how it got here without design information flowing into the matter to establish the immense functional complexity we see in living things. It just happened, once upon a time, long, long ago and in a land far, far away. DNA just is. Get used to it.
— Qman - Jun 5, 06:52 PM - #Some may give ID a religious but the IDEA of Intelligent Design originated with the Greeks (Like Socrates and Plato -ever hear of ‘em?) NOT with the evangelicals. Learn some history and stop acting so sophomoric or should I say sophomoronic.
— Prof.Helen McCaffrey - Jun 5, 07:09 PM - #When I was younger, my original problem with the concept of “natural selection” was the Tucan. I could not understand how anyone, including Darwin, could rationally explain how the Tucan came into being through natural selection.
But my current problem with natural selection is that it does not explain how “life” (e.g. DNA) came into being in the first place.
My problem with those who propose “intelligent design” as an alternative explanation to “natural selection” is that they seem motivated by the fear that natural selection somehow “disproves” the existence of God (or negates the truth of the Bible).
Both sides in this argument make my skin itch. Science does not become “useless” if the theory of “natural selection” fails to explain life on earth, and faith does not require that “intelligent design” be taught in schools.
Give it a rest.
— hterrya - Jun 5, 07:25 PM - #Prof.Helen McCaffrey:
Actually you should study a little history yourself, because you would then also know that the idea of evolution began with the Greeks also. The same Greeks who developed atomic theory and discussed the possibility of other planets over 2,00 years ago.
In fact, as you mention the Greeks (primarily Aristotle actually) this is where the Christians got their ideas about ID in the first place.
Again, see: www.rationalrevoluti…
— rationalrevolution - Jun 5, 09:10 PM - #You repeat yourself professor. You already gave Greeks the credit for the concept of “intellignt design.” (Item #7)
People of faith come to the conclusion from the Bible (In the beginning, God created…).
— hterrya - Jun 6, 04:16 AM - #“The Quest for Right”: A Creationist Attack on Quantum Mechanics.
By Stephen L of the newsgroups.derkeiler.com
Here’s a different take on creationism/ID: “The Quest for Right,” a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics:
“American Atheists base their reasoning on Quantum Interpretation, hand in hand with Quantum Mathematics. Summoning the dark forces of quantum mysticism, with mathematical incantations, possesses the power to bewilder, and thus con, the average persons seemingly at will, into believing the bizarre and surreal: Z Particles, Neutrinos, Leptons, Quarks, Weak Bosons, etc. Mystics attempt to pass off quantum abuses as legitimate science, by expressing the theories in symbolic fashion. These formula represent the greatest hoax ever pulled upon an unsuspecting public….The objective….is to expedite the return to classical physics, by exposing quantum dirty tricks. That is, unethical behavior or acts,...to undermine and destroy the credibility of Biblical histories. These dirty tricks include: Absolute dating systems, Big Bang Theory, Antimatter, and Oort Cloud. These…have no further station in Science.”
www.questforright.co…
A more sophisticated way to argue against Darwin is certainly to argue against modern physics. Without modern physics, you lose astrophysics too, which enables the author to make the case for YEC [young earth creationism]. The author goes on to “prove” that things like red supergiant stars and X-ray pulsars don’t really exist, except in the imagination of scientists.”
— C. David Parsons - Jun 6, 08:24 AM - #Excellent debunking and, for me personally, expelling of the movie from my list of potential films worth viewing, Mr. Berlin.
— Lew - Jun 6, 09:30 AM - #I like the review. Thanks!
Did someone really try to disprove evolution by saying that a rock would never sprout legs? Thank you for that, it made my day.
The idea of evolution is completely independent of religion, so there is no reason to freak out and feel that people are trying to disprove the existence of a god-like figure. Science seeks to explain natural phenomena by testing falsifiable hypotheses. Since you can’t test ID, it’s not science. Again, that has no bearing on the validity of religion.And just out of curiosity what leads someone to believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old?
— Dev - Jun 6, 10:14 AM - #For those who have not yet seen the
— JoeU - Jun 6, 11:35 AM - #Ben Stein documentary:
“EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”
visit:
www.ExpelledTheMovie…
to view
3 movie trailers
and a Bill O’Reilly interview.
.
For those who state that neo-Darwinism does not explain DNA or how DNA came to be along with RNA and translation to protein I recommend the following books. The Blind Watchmaker and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. The second book may be a little tough going to those with less science in their background but it is definitely worth it. And yes, natural selection most definitely does provide a theory as to how DNA came to be; without a primemover.
— Dave - Jun 10, 01:37 PM - #Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough debunking of this important issue. I think your ascertain that ID is just not science was particularly meaningful. I think believing that intelligence played a part in the creation of the universe is a great thing; I just don’t want it taught in science classes, printed in science journals, or presented as an alternative to evolution. The statement “the world is too perfect to happy by chance” isn’t a scientific statement (and it does little to explain the platypus or appendix.) Attempts to use ID to try and discredit evolution really irk me. I am all for critically considering science, but I am not for political pandering.
— Josh - Jun 10, 04:14 PM - #I’m going to say this for those here whose grasp of knowledge isn’t quite up to par:
— Matt - Jun 11, 11:23 AM - #EVOLUTION explains the processes of natural selection and such. ABIOGENESIS is the separate thesis/field that discusses how life came to be on this planet. EVOLUTION does not claim to know how life originally occurred, but they can sure as hell show you all the mountains of evidence that show evolution works. The most recent piece? Scientists studied a bird population, and part of that group left for another island or was transplanted there by the scientists. this new island had a slightly different ecosystem. Over 50 years or so the birds on the second island became a new species with bigger beaks and a host of other different features, if memory serves.
Also, my fav, the Tuatara of New Zealand I think it is. The little lizard dates back to prehistoric times and sports a rudimentary third eye facing upwards which can discern between light and dark and basic shapes, thus showing that the eye did not just pop into our sockets by god’s will.
The universe was created in 6 24 hour periods about 6,000 years ago.
Science can neither prove nor disprove this divinely revealed fact. Science can’t prove that the earth isn’t in the center of the universe. Miracles won’t fit in a test tube.
Jesus holds the universe He created together. He is before all things, and by him all things consist, Colossians 1:17
— John H - Jun 12, 02:01 AM - #