Other Sites I Recommend
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent anyone else's view in any way, including those of my employer.
© Copyright 2008
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent anyone else's view in any way, including those of my employer.
© Copyright 2008
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
I just got home from watching ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ the new documentertainment constructed in a manner made popular by Michael Moore and capitalized upon by numerous advocates of the cultural left in recent years. The movie seeks to ‘expose’ the bias in modern science against the concept of ‘Intelligent Design’. While the movie successfully accomplishes not only this, but also films Richard Dawkins making a case for Intelligent Design- but unfortunately the movie fails to offer anything of substance to the conversation.
Aside from the 20 minutes spent in a concentration camp making the correlation between Darwinism and the Holocaust, the movie successfully presents that many scientists hold to the theory that the origin of life was designed by a higher being. But, unless I’m in a minority of American society, the movie offered nothing new to the conversation. Instead the movie attempts to ‘fight fire with fire’, making grand accusations and engaging in a slander campaign against the current bias withing science.
The highlight of the movie for me was the interviews with Alister McGrath and his calls for genuine dialogue, which while given prominent position are far outweighed by the propagandist visuals of concentration camps and the deconstruction of the Berlin Wall in the name of ‘freedom’.
Discussion of freedom was used to encapsulate the movie. The movie opened and closed with Ben Stein declaring to a room of college students that our freedoms are being taken away by people unwilling to allow honest dialogue and discussion. As I said earlier, the movie succeeds in showing that there are certain questions deemed illegitimate and showing the bias against religion in modern science BUT the movie fails to make an adequate case why I should care.
After watching this movie I only have 2 questions:
1. Why shouldn’t secular science be biased against religion?
Religion has done just as much harm as good throughout the History of the world. If scientists read the narrative accounts of scripture as exact history, as so many conservatives propose, Judaism is responsible for divinely ordained genocide, oppression, infanticide, and the displacement of ancient near easter peoples. Religion in the hands of ignorant, fideists scares me, a God-fearing man who dedicated 4 years of study to the texts of the Bible- why wouldn’t it scare our post-Christian society more so?
2. How does inspiring the ignorant, superstitious, religious folk against modern science do anything but further polarize each side and make genuine dialogue more unattainable?
All this movie seems to do is bring an issue to the forefront of the general public and encourage the psudo-intellectuals to pick a side and fight for its defense. The general public has no say, nor should they, in this issue so why bother stirring public opinion? If this movie succeeds in changing the climate in academia I fear it will herald more bad than good for our academic institutions. A scientist being changed by public bias seems just as dangerous, if not more so, as a scientist being limited by their biases and presuppositions.
In closing, as with the movies The God Who Wasn’t There and Jesus Camp I suggest Christians who want to better understand how we are viewed by the world around us should see this movie. Just don’t expect it to change your world.
Earl
More Options ...
Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Void « Default
Life 
Earth 
Wind 
Water 
Fire Light
Previous 
Next 
Comment Meta:
Last 50 Posts
Back
I wanted to go see the movie yesterday, but will have to wait until later this week.
I’m not holding out hope that it will change by mind or rock my world or whatever. I think the purpose of the movie, as explained in the title and on the webpage, is simply to point out the bias in the academy against ID or any form of ‘higher power’ being involved in scientific methodology. I think that this might actually end up promoting dialogue because now the problem, or a problem has been pointed out. Now dialogue can begin.
As for your questions:
Why shouldn’t secular science be biased against religion?
I think it would be either naivete or ignorance that would cause science to be biased against religion.
Naivete in the case of a scientist believing that she or he does not also have some philosophical (more precisely, epistemological) presuppositions that she or he is guided by in her or his work. Those presuppositions can and should be challenged, sharpened, and reformed. Religion can do this.
Ignorance in the case of a scientist knowing that she or he is guided by certain epistemological presuppositions, but unwilling to allow religion, or anyone else for that matter, challenge those presuppositions.
Otherwise we are back to modernity and scientific idealism.
How does inspiring the ignorant, superstitious, religious folk against modern science do anything but further polarize each side and make genuine dialogue more unattainable?
I think the film should be judged on what it set out to do. In this case, I think the film was made for the purpose of simply pointing out the problems in academia. I’m not quite sure it was set out to solve them. That would take much more than a film.
Like I said above, I think that this film now provides a basis or springboard for conversation answering questions like, “Why is this happening?” “What can be done to bridge the gap?” “How can we get through this impasse?”
I think that would be a helpful discussion. I think that might have been what McGrath was getting at.
I stand corrected. The movie may have potential to facilitate conversation. It just seemed to me that academia must have been long aware of this conflict and I don’t see how stirring public opinion will help things. This isn’t something that public opinion can change. I’m absolutely in favor of those being oppressed speaking out, I’m just not convinced that this is the best vehicle to start the dialogue to end the oppression.
McGrath was spot on in his exhortation to pursue open dialogue on both sides, it just seemed that the movie started off facilitating conversation and then took a turn for the worse when it took the offensive by drawing the overused parallels between Darwinism and Nazi genocide. The movie definitely was attempting to stir the emotions of the common man at least as much as it was actually pointing out a problem.
Your response to religion in science is completely accurate, I guess the question I meant to ask was ‘the pendellum is going to swing regardless of our efforts, why bother trying to stop it?’
That’s a whole other conversation though. I’m not sure what position we should take toward the current hostile, reactionary nature of secular culture.
Earl
Interesting review. Most reviews I’ve read have been Christians praising it or atheists condemning it (surprising, huh?). This was a good mix, with a couple of good questions. In short, I appreciate this review, Earl.
I must say that I’m beginning to develop a theolocrush on Alister McGrath. I may have to see the movie just to hear his part, because I really don’t care about the rest. Reason being is that in some ways you are right. For many of us this is just another reminder of something we already knew–radical atheism hates Christianity. Of course, you might still be in the minority of Americans who actually have a working knowledge of the debate.
But, for some–at least I hope this is true–it will open their eyes to the fact that not all scientists believe in naturalistic evolution, and they aren’t all idiots, either. Things such as this present a good response (albeit a little late) to things like the PBS documentary on evolution where they so boldly stated that EVERY scientist in the world believes in evolution. The common person needs to hear both sides, and I hope this will show that.
But you do raise a good point about people’s ignorance. There are atheists and Christians alike who don’t know jacksquat about their own worldview or that of the people that so diligently hate. And this movie will likely only further that (on both sides). But as much as we might want it, how well do we suppose a well documented movie clearly presenting both sides and trying to open dialogue would be attended by the ignorant? I’m not sure if there really is a good answer. As the cliche goes, “You can’t fix stupid.”
But the question about secular science not being biased toward religion is where I might have to disagree. I don’t disagree that bad things (some have been really bad) have been done in the name of religion. But that doesn’t make religion invalid. Dawkins argued (with Bill O’Reilly) that the bad things being done in the name of atheism doesn’t invalidate its worldview. It has to be fair both ways.
So these radical atheists, such as Dawkins and Hitchens, claim science to be fair and unbiased. That’s the basis of their argument against religious epistemology–they are objective and we are subjective. I know this is similar to what Art said, but it’s a very important point. You can’t claim to be objective (as these radical atheists do), and then be so incredibly biased against the claims of religion. And if I’ve heard correctly, doesn’t Dawkins clearly admit that he simply wouldn’t accept ID even if science pointed that way?
Anyway, good post and good questions. Don’t mean to ramble too much in the comments.
-Alan
Alan- I think Art said it best, when he said if we fail to admit the bias we all have, we’re just returning to the shortcoming of modernism.
And Ben Stein somehow god Dawkins to explain a possible theory for creation as intelligent design. He said it couldn’t be a ‘God’ who designed it, but perhaps a higher being from another planet or something of the like. It’s right at the very end, but it was awesome because he obviously didn’t realize what he had just said.
btw, welcome to the McGrath fan club. I’ve probably told you already, but the guys my fricken hero.
earl
[...] Barnett says the best part is when Richard Dawkins makes a case for Intelligent Design: The movie seeks to ‘expose’ the bias in modern science against the concept of ‘Intelligent [...]
Have you read McGrath’s “Dawkin’s Delusion”? It’s only like 120 pages or something, so it’s a short, but I think a worthwhile read. For me the the best thing I think about the movie is that it sort of answers “Where’s the evidence for ID if it’s “science?” Well, for one there cannot be any serious study about it.
The biggest problem I thought though, was that it seemed to sort of give a very loose definition for ID (seemingly to include the possibility of theistic evolution), but then turned around and seemed to indicate that evolution always leads to atheism. I think a little more background on McGrath would have been good (didn’t he study Microbio at the same institution as Dawkins?) And what about Fransis Collins? He’s a big time scientist AND a strong believer (and evolutionist heaven forbid)
I thought it was highly ironic that they talked about scientist sort of discussing the problems of evolution behind closed doors, because the same could be said of the “Agenda” of the ID proponents. The Discovery Institute guys spoke on Focus on the Family a couple of years ago. That conversation was enlightening. Stein also did an interveiw with Dobson the week before the release of the film. Dobson has officially endorsed the film. ’nuff said about that.
Unfortunately, the blog on the Expelled website shows just how divided folk are on this.
Er…I guess I’ll go out on a limb and be the liberal in the group by saying that Intelligent Design isn’t science. Beyond this, I’m not convinced that the documentary is accurate. I’ve not seen the entire thing yet, but several of the scenes I’ve watched seem to me to most likely be taking comments by scientists out of context. Articles like this one (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer) cause me to have some concern about the honesty and objectivity of this particular documentary.
Calvin- I think that would largely depend on the definition of ID. If it were merely the theory that the complexity of life gives evidence to some creative force, that would be different than equating it with 6 day creationism. To me it is no less scientific to say that guided mutations caused diveristy than it is to say that random mutations did.
Personally BOTH are beyond the scope of science (at this time) in my opinion, and often both have other motives behind their assertions.
I do think that MANY of the ID proponents would like to see 6-day creationism tought along side evolution, but they realize that they have to “start small”.
Alex, I agree completely that both are beyond the scope of science. However, the difference is in the way they are beyond the scope of science.
One will never be able to prove the existence of an intelligent designer in a laboratory experiment, or through field observation. On the other hand, one might be able to show random mutations (and, I might add, a variety of other criteria) making changes in populations over a long period of time going forward from here. That is, obviously, not an air-tight case. But it is science. There are plenty of people who believe that God had some hand in “designing” (for lack of a better word) the universe, but who still hold to evolution.
Let me see if I can put this another way. Intelligent design says, “We don’t understand it, therefore someone/something created it.” This is okay, but it’s not science. Science would say, “We don’t completely understand it, but based on observations such and such happened.”
The issue is that science is based on observable phenomenon whereas God/an intelligent designer is not observable.
Did that make sense?
thanks for posting this review, Earl. I’ve been reading up on this at http://www.lookingcloserjournal.blogspot.com.
his reviews were similar to yours.
sometime soon i’ll have to see for myself, but in the meantime this is great info.
Thank your for your kind words.
just saw Expelled; the fact that Ben Stein isn’t trying to win any popularity contests helps to validate his message… i gather that his goal is to promote free thought, especially more thinking about the worldviews that drive American academia