Where's the beef?

Dirk Diggler's picture

Here's a 9 minute trailer from the movie Expelled due for release in February 2008. Oh boy, I can hardly wait. Pay attention and you will notice part of this trailer was filmed at the Voter Issues Conference sponsored by the Family Research Council. If the FRC's involvement hasn't sufficiently raised the alarm, how about two of their more infamous spokesman, James Dobson and Tony Perkins?

The FRC is a Christian political organization that promotes values such as anti-homosexual rights, prayer in schools, abstinence only education, teaching creationism in science class instead of or along side evolution, ending women's reproductive rights, anti-birth control and even stopping stem cell research that could better the lives of millions of Americans. Hmmm. I wonder why the FRC is so interested in the movie Expelled and Intelligent Design?


This is a pretty long trailer, so I think you can get a fairly good idea of what is actually in the movie. From what I can see, it seems to follow the guidelines put forth by the Discovery Institute's leaked Wedge Strategy document. That is, to "teach the controversy," which is ironic because the only controversy I see is another creationist coming along trying to inject their deity into science class for the umpteenth time in our countries short history.

Ben Stein is the narrator. Stein portrays ID as a legitimate scientific theory equal to and in direct competition with Darwin's theory of natural selection. Never mind that evolution has withstood 150 years of scrutiny, testing and updates. Intelligent design is the belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. As you can see, right away we have a problem, unless that is, we are ready to redefine science to accommodate the selfish needs of Christian apologists?

I think it's important to understand the definition of science if ID is to be judged fairly.

From Wikipedia:

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice.[1] In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and
Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies.

Natural Science

In science, the term natural science refers to a rational approach to the study of the universe, which is understood as obeying rules or laws of natural origin. The term natural science is also used to distinguish those fields that use the scientific method to study nature from the social sciences, which use the scientific method to study human behavior and society; and from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, which use a different methodology.

Maybe the actual movie makes more sense than the trailer lets on, but I doubt it. Stein just doesn't get it. He says "there are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch god." Well duh. Yes, I don't want to change the definition of science to include the supernatural. I don't see how that would be productive. We have science. And we also have another field called theology. I don't see the need to combine the two.

Stein even admits that he believes the universe, earth and all living things on our planet were created by "a loving god." Stein, like many creationists I've read or listened to, seems to intentionally confuse the theory of evolution with how life began. Darwin's book written in 1859 was called The Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life.

Stein also does his best to misconstrue and patronize scientific theories of how life began on this planet. He uses the phrase "mud animated by lightning" twice just in the movie trailer. I think it's a little more complicated than that, but nevertheless, evolution is not about how life began, therefore, the "controversy" is basically one big strawman argument.

It looks like a good chunk of the movie is designed to build sympathy for the religiously motivated ID propagandists. Stein makes arguments about how free speech is an American value, yet ID proponents are shouted down and the scientific community treats them unfairly. According to Stein "scientists are not even allowed to think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator." He accuses the media, the courts and federal education system of all being in on the persecution of ID'ers. Stein interviews many so-called ID "scientists" and they give accounts of how they were told to shut-up and many lost their jobs because of the evil 'Darwinists' whatever that is.

Stein refers to mainstream scientists repeatedly as "Darwinists." This looks very similar to tactics used by the far right lunatic fringe of the Republican party when they try to demonize words like liberal, Democrat or atheist. You have to say these words while sneering.

The interviews done for this movie are edited in a way that marginalizes mainstream scientists objections to ID. I didn't see anything in the trailer touting the exciting new field of science ID is supposed to represent. It was all criticism of mainstream science. They show a brief clip of Dawkins saying "As a scientist, I am pretty hostile to rival doctrines." That is obviously taken out of context. I would love to know what he says before and after that statement. Another clip is of a shadowy figure claiming that "scientists" that believe in ID are driven underground for fear of discrimination. Stein says "those who challenge the status quo seldom go unpunished" as if ID proponents are really truth seekers and not religious zealots trying to advance their agenda.

I think the creators of Expelled are trying to give ID an image of being rebellious. The whole 'expelled' theme is supposed to make you think of a naughty student. There is even a clip of Stein writing on the black board that he will not question authority. And the movie's theme song is George Thorogood's 1982 hit Bad to the Bone. You have to laugh at the warning Stein gives that those who dare to watch this movie risk losing friends or even their jobs. The last thing he asks is "will anyone be left to fight this battle?" Oh, please.

All in all, I was left thinking "where's the beef?" I kept waiting for Stein and the ID'ers to say this is our scientific theory and here is the massive evidence supporting this theory. Instead, all I heard was whining. A bunch of professional victims complaining at how unfair the world is. Boo-f'ing-hoo. If your so-called science is sound, no one will be able to deny it. Show me ID deserves to be treated equal to evolution with sound science, not bitching.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
RAHRules's picture

un-effin'-believable

Sometimes I'm utterly astounded how people who seem to be otherwise completely rational can buy into the sky-daddy can of batshit clear up to the point of throwing away thousands of years of documented evidence of what IS, because they're too weak to live without superstition and unable to think for themselves.

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." Robert A Heinlien

milkywayinhabitant's picture

Laugh Riot

I love the conspiratorial tone these people always try to have:

Some of you are going to lose friends by watching this film. Some of you may even lose your jobs.

Yeah. Fucking. Right. Seriously, give me a break. As if watching a movie makes you automatically agree with everything in it. And even so, I have many creationist friends who know I disagree with them but guess what? I'm still their friend. I've never turned on a friend because of their disregard for good science.

I'm sure many, many scientists (real ones) are going to watch this film too and blog or write about it afterward. Surely they won't get fired for watching it. If Ben Stein thinks you can lose your job for watching a movie, then maybe he's wrong and this IS Nazi Germany!

Wow...I can't wait to see this movie get torn apart by critics in the scientific community. Here I am picking on two bullshit sentences in the above clip that don't even touch on the "scientific" side of the film.

littlehorn's picture

I may get a little heat on

I may get a little heat on this, but i don't have much sympathy for Dawkins. He IS an asshole with regards to how he treats people, and this quote, out of context or not, really fits with his general behavior. That is, mock the believers, laugh at their face.
We were bound to get a clip from Dawkins in a christian movie anyway. I'm a little surprised they didn't find anything more shocking from the guy... :-/

Dirk Diggler's picture

Yes, Dawkins can be an asshole sometimes, but...

I may get a little heat on this, but i don't have much sympathy for Dawkins.

Some may disagree with this statement, but I don't. I think you're right. Sometimes Dawkins is a little over the top and sometimes other's are not harsh enough with their criticism. The point is, I don't feel like Dawkins is my leader. I don't think the New Atheist movement has a 'leader' per se.

And I would also point out, that in-your-face-atheist thinkers like Dawkins or PZ Myers might not want your sympathy. Perhaps some of the other writers better express your sensibilities? Are you familiar with Daniel Dennett? I am greatful for voices that range from angry and militant all the way down to mild and graceful. I like having a full range of ideas and opinions to pick and choose from.

He IS an asshole with regards to how he treats people, and this quote, out of context or not, really fits with his general behavior. That is, mock the believers, laugh at their face.

This is a hard one for me also. How can you expect to have an earnest dialogue with someone you are mocking? On the other hand, you can't expect me to do anything but laugh at people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. I try to measure the situation and individual before I decide how to express my views.

Hank Fox's picture

Dawkins an asshole?

I've never even heard Dawkins raise his voice. I saw him once being incredulous when some Muslim kid tried to accuse him (and other western men) of making western women into whores, but other than that, he practically DEFINES "sedate academic."

I wonder if some of you guys may have unconsciously conceded certain argumentative ground to the Christian majority.

I have only gradually come to notice how one-sided the whole conflict is. Christians can think they're being nice and magnanimous -- speaking quietly and wearing smiles on their faces -- while at the same time ripping your guts out and rolling over you with a 20-ton steamroller.

To reply to the kind of attacks that are so culturally ingrained that they sometimes don't even know they're making them -- "Why, some of my best friends are Negroes!" -- is difficult.

But being firm and forthright is not being an asshole. It's also not "anger." What it is, is NECESSARY.

And this is the moment, guys. The moment when we could win respect, and a place at the table, or the moment when we lose it all, for everybody. (And I'm not kidding. I really think we're on a pivot-point of history, and some really nasty shit lies ahead ... unless somebody or something manages to shift our course.)

Considering what rational people face -- it's not just an uphill, it's an overhanging cliff -- I suggest we might all consider lightening up on our allies. Our FEW allies.

Dawkins is incredible. I couldn't be happier with him if I invented him myself.

george.w's picture

Assuming the other side wants an earnest dialog

"How can you expect to have an earnest dialogue with someone you are mocking?"

In most cases he is only engaging in reductio ad absurdum, which is perfectly standard argumentative technique. But the other side never asked to have a dialog with us. From their perspective, nothing good can come of dialog with atheists. Without us there would never be any dialog. We're like the plaintiffs in the court of public opinion.

I must admit to being very conflicted in how to relate to Christianists. Confrontation is not my default mode to say the least. But then I read about some outrage from the churchy and, hoo boy...

The point is, I don't feel like Dawkins is my leader. I don't think the New Atheist movement has a 'leader' per se.

Nor mine, but Christianists certainly think of him that way. I guess it didn't get to be an old problem by being easy to solve.

Jim Downey's picture

Having a full range . . .

. . . of responses to religion just makes sense to me. I really enjoy watching the in-your-face types, but know that they are just trying to create a space for other voices with their activism. It is very much the case that without those willing to push hard on this subject, even us mild-mannered folks would be facing much more societal censure.

Jim Downey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.

george.w's picture

Dawkins is more tone-deaf than bellicose

Sometimes it appears he doesn't very well gauge how his words come across, especially to religious people.

I am just full of admiration for that brave, heroic Ben Stein. What courage it must take to stride to the podium amidst thunderous applause and to the tunes of a favorite redneck anthem. A single voice against the conspiracy; "the media is in on it, and the schools..." Such lonely odds, he only has 150 million or so Americans on his side.

He's... he's like Galileo, that's what he is! The authorities squashing down on him because he opposes their orthodoxy! I notice they got their Nazis in there too. Got to have Nazis in a creationist documentary.

He seems confused about the difference between censorship (which is something the government does) and the self-correcting nature of science. Curriculum decisions are not censorship.

Oh well, once the movie opens we'll get to answer all the same canards again. And again. And again.

Jim Downey's picture

Ain't it the truth.

I am just full of admiration for that brave, heroic Ben Stein.

Ain't it the truth. Taking such an unpopular stand based on the size of the check they undoubtedly gave him is just awe-inspiring.

Jim Downey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.

Pmomma's picture

Ben Stein

What I don't understand is, aside from his position during the Nixon administration (wasn't he an economist?) and "Win Ben Stein's Money", since when is Stein an expert in the sciences? It's so like the IDers to get an underqualified celebrity to try to add legitimacy to their agenda.

Hank Fox's picture

Economist?

I haven't bothered to check on it -- I'm not that interested in Ben Stein -- but I THOUGHT he was a speechwriter.

george.w's picture

Not an economist but is thought of as sort of a money guru

He's been really successful at investing so he's rich. And he was a speechwriter for Nixon so that doesn't exactly endear me to him.

It will be worth knowing something about him shortly. He has positioned himself as a big hero to creationists, not a small demographic.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content