Reviews Oct 20 2008 @ 07:00 am
REVIEW: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Directed By: Nathan Frankowski
Written By: Kevin Miller, Ben Stein
Starring: Ben Stein
Running Time: 90 minutes
Rated PG for thematic material, some disturbing images and brief smoking
This review was originally published April 20th, 2008.
“Science is an intellectual dead end, you know? It’s a lot of little guys in tweed suits cutting up frogs on foundation grants.” –Woody Allen, Sleeper
How did that quote make you feel? Love it? Hate it? Did you feel liberated by it, or threatened? How you answer those questions will probably determine how you feel about Ben Stein’s comedy-documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. With his latest project, Stein has chosen to question authority, but he’s chosen an authority that’s not particularly popular to question. I’m referring to the scientific establishment (a loaded phrase to be sure, but certainly an accurate one, at least divorced from all connotation), and specifically the field of evolutionary biology. Odds are if this sounds like something you’ll enjoy, you’ve already gone to see Expelled—but regardless of how you feel about its arguments and its conclusions, I think it’s always fun to see some holes shot in authority figures, don’t you?
Natural selection was discovered by...anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I don’t think it’s really my job to tell you whether you should agree or disagree with the arguments presented here, so I’ll just give you the gist of what’s being said: Ben Stein is concerned about academic freedom—namely in the field of science. He claims that established scientists are being dismissed from tenured positions and blacklisted for venturing into the territory of Intelligent Design. And what, exactly, is Intelligent Design? Well, that depends on who you ask. To the press it’s the idea that “The complexity of life is better explained by a creator rather than natural selection,” or something pithy like that. To the scientific establishment it’s just a re-branding of the pseudoscience known as Creationism. To its practitioners, it’s serious science that’s backed by evidence and useful for predicting discoveries. That’s not something they say in public, though—nor is it something they really get the chance to elaborate on in Expelled. Stein has a handful of interviews with Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Caroline Crocker and others who assert that they were dismissed from their jobs for researching, asserting, or mentioning Intelligent Design (some of this is true, some of it exaggerated, and some of it blatantly misrepresented). The focus, however, is on their experience, not their scientific work. Stein spends a few minutes interviewing ID scientists who “are afraid to appear on camera” for fear of losing their jobs, but assert that ID is useful in guiding their work. Since they can’t show their faces, use their names, or discuss specifics, it’s not particularly enlightening.
Let’s be honest with ourselves here, though: Expelled is a propaganda film, and nothing else. That’s not a condemnation, nor is it praise; it’s merely a statement of genre. There are bad propaganda films and good propaganda films. Triumph of the Will is an example of the former; Victory Through Air Power is an example of the latter—but in the end what’s “good” is usually just whatever we agree with, isn’t it? Whether you like Bowling for Columbine is pretty much determined by how you feel about gun control; whether you like Expelled will depend almost entirely on how you feel about ID. In terms of sheer filmmaking it’s not bad, and it’s certainly entertaining. It’s somewhat heavy-handed, but that arguably comes with the territory. The opening sequence—while admittedly entirely emotional—establishes the film’s Berlin Wall motif (a metaphor for “Big Science’s”—Stein’s words, not mine—policy of keeping out dissent) with both visual finesse and some beautiful music (composers Robbie Bronniman and Andy Hunter are at the top of their game here). Stein’s deadpan narration is consistently entertaining, and the cinematography is highly expressive. Above all, Stein manages to make Richard Dawkins look like a total fool—which I think we can all agree is no small feat, considering Dawkins is one of the more brilliant and charming people living today. (It’s kind of like Inherit the Wind, but in reverse.)
Unfortunately, there’s no real substance here. The film isn’t interested in engaging scientists on an intellectual level, nor is it in a hurry to present real evidence for ID. It’s content to shoot holes in evolutionary theory and show the audience silly (but not particularly funny) cartoons. The result is something fairly facile and lowbrow, even as it attempts to examine what should be a heady and fascinating subject. In any case, it veers way off course in the third act when it spends far too much time trying to blame evolutionary theory for Nazism. Even if the two are related (and yes, there is almost certainly a connection), what, exactly, is to be gained from making such an accusation (especially since opponents of ID can point to any number of atrocities committed in the name of deities X, Y and Z)?
There’s a definite possibility of a thought-provoking, bridge-building film about ID and Darwinism out there, but this isn’t it. It’s simply taken far too many pages out of Michael Moore’s book of tricks to effect real discussion. This is a film with a message, and it communicates it in an amusing and entertaining way, but it has to take too many logical leaps to do it credibly. It raises some interesting questions, but it’s only likely to find an audience with people who already agree with it.
Mr. Dawkins is not amused.
To be fair, the film does have some decent points that are worth considering: that science that pre-assumes the nonexistence or irrelevance of deity is guaranteed not to find a deity, and that science does not exist in a vacuum. Every theory does have philosophical, religious, sociological, and practical implications. To ignore these is to rob science of all real meaning—particularly in the classroom, which should be a place of free inquiry, but has become a battleground for both sides.
At the same time, if ID really wants to be taken seriously as a science, it’s clearly going about it all wrong. This film is one example of the decidedly non-academic approach, but it’s really just the tip of the iceberg. The rush to get ID into classrooms—before any sort of real theory or methodology has been established—is, at best, misguided. Until ID makes itself useful to science—i.e. proves that it’s capable of explaining and predicting real phenomena—it simply won’t be taken seriously, no matter how loudly it asks to be. I’d like to see these questions examined dispassionately, but can’t imagine that happening, since everybody—atheists, Christians, Jews, etc.—has a vested interest in being right.
My personal inclination is to throw my hands up and say “meh” to all of this (I believe I’m with Woody Allen on this one). After all, what does knowing the workings of the primordial soup really do for us in the end? I do have one hope, though—that the comments section for this review erupts into an angry argument. Like the movie, I’m sure it will be ultimately empty, but entertaining nonetheless.
on Apr 21 2008 @ 10:25 am 1. Fletch said …
This is another extremely well-written review, but I was a bit bothered by how hard you tried to straddle the fence. It seemed as though you were a play-by-play guy doing a national game and were desperately trying to not show your allegiances to either of the team’s playing.
“What does knowing the workings of the primordial soup really do for us in the end?”
I think you’re skipping over the biggest question, and the reason these debates (and wars and…) go on forever. Power, money, superiority, confidence – knowing the absolute truth isn’t necessary to get these things, but being able to convince the majority sure goes a long way towards them.
on Apr 21 2008 @ 6:28 pm 2. Luke Harrington said …
Quite honestly, I made the decision to do my best not to take sides in this review. I could tell that Expelled was going to get trashed in the mainstream media and get raves in the religious media–simply because of its content, without regard to whether it was any good as a film. I figured someone should actually review this one as a movie, and it might as well be me.
What I say in this review, though, is actually pretty close to my own opinions. I don’t think that just because an argument is impassioned, bitter and polarized it means you have to be on one side or the other. The “right” answer is almost always a more subtle, nuanced one. (You could say that I root for neither team, but that I’m simply saddened by the fact that they both feel the need to fight dirty.)
If you really want to know my opinion though, I would say that I have to agree with the basic premise of this film–i.e., that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) should be able to freely pursue whatever fields they deem worthy, even if some people are offended by it. If ID is wrong, or simply bad science, it will fall by the wayside and die off on its own (every good Darwinist should know that). That established science feels such a need to rage against it suggests that there is something else going on here. (String theory, for instance, is thus far unsupportable by experiment, and at this point has no useful implications–but nobody hates string theory the way they hate ID.) People can say it’s “not science” if they want–but once they make that particular statement, they’ve stepped out of the boundaries of science themselves, and are making philosophical claims.
I will, however, stand by my criticisms of the ID movement, and even add to them, if you want to hear that. But this post is getting too long as it is. You’re absolutely right here, though:
I tend not to think of things this way. I guess I’m a bit of an idealist when it comes to the human pursuit of knowledge. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of room for idealists in the modern world.
on Apr 22 2008 @ 5:10 pm 3. Luke Harrington said …
So it would seem, but it’s unfortunate that he’s using these tactics.
on Apr 22 2008 @ 10:18 pm 4. Evan Derrick said …
I find the Michael Moore style approach to be utterly disingenuous. It’s entertaining, for sure, but at the end I find I almost totally ignore anything he’s saying. Do we need more gun control? I’m sure we do, but Bowling for Columbine succeeded in only making Charlton Heston look like an idiot, which actually made me a bit sad for him.
What I’ve heard floating around the internet is that Expelled was originally a film called Crossroads that was billed as an evenhanded discussion between ID and evolutionary biology. That is how they got bigwigs like Richard Dawkins on camera – they lied to them about the true intentions of the film.
For my part, I’m a proponent of ID (being an evangelical Christian and whatnot), but like the average person I simply back that up by knowing there are some very smart people who agree with me. Put me in a debate and I’m chopped liver. However, using tactics like this just pisses me off, even if I agree with the point being made. Its like all the conservative radio shock jocks – yeah, I agree with you guys, but do you have to be such pricks about it all?
on Apr 23 2008 @ 12:00 pm 5. Luke Harrington said …
Don’t tell anyone, but I actually read Ann Coulter’s book Godless one dull summer. I was entertained by it, and even agreed with it on occasion, but just felt dirty for even picking it up. It was like 200+ pages of saying absolutely nothing.
That’s the problem with the so-called Culture Wars. Everyone’s airing their opinion – not to engage in meaningful debate, but simply for the sake of offending people that disagree with them. We like Michael Moore because he pisses off Republicans; we like Rush Limbaugh because he pisses off Democrats; etc., etc., etc. Have we all given up on making actual progress?
The Wittenburg Door actually posted a really thoughtful review of this movie – certainly much more interesting than my own. Y’all should check it out.
(And, as a side note, its comment section really did turn into the “angry argument” I refer to in my last paragraph.)
on Apr 23 2008 @ 12:09 pm 6. Rick Olson said …
Well, I used to be a research biologist and now I’m a Presbyterian preacher, how d’ya like THEM apples?
Anyhow, I still am a “believer” in evolution, although I think folks like Dawkins are just as dogmatic as the folks who can’t stand the thought that natural selection may be the way God chose to do things.
Really, though … when ID has as long and distinguished a string of evidence, and when it explains as much of the natural world as natural selection, call me up. I think everybody has the right to pursue whatever research they want, but funding agencies have the right to deny funding to research they think of as having questionable merit.
But then again, as an ex-researcher, I know well that there are cliques in science and consensus opinions, and that careers are often tied up in maintaining the status quo and etc., so I say to the ID researchers: “Go get ‘em. I just wish you wouldn’t whine about it quite so much.”
(By the way, Evan, I heard the same stuff as you did, about shady tactics in the making of this film.)
on May 16 2008 @ 3:44 pm 7. CC said …
Any chance this flick will end up the a theater in the sticks?
on May 16 2008 @ 4:13 pm 8. Luke Harrington said …
That you, Christine?
It’s possible, since this movie set a new record for the widest opening of a documentary ever…but at the moment its website is only showing a single location in WY…and it’s in Sheridan. Which is weird.
I’d keep an eye on it, though…
on Jan 10 2009 @ 1:23 pm 9. [review]: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed « …yet made of stars said …
[...] January 10, 2009 Cross-posted at: MovieZeal [...]