Ben Stein’s Expelled generates more heat than light
Ben Stein’s Expelled generates more heat than light
Return to digital BC Christian News

By Peter T. Chattaway

CANADIANS are making their mark on the evangelical movie scene – but unlike our brethren south of the border, most of us may have to wait until the movie in question comes out on video to see what all the fuss is about.

The latest Christian film to crack the all-important top-10 list at the box office is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary on the Intelligent Design (ID) movement hosted by Ben Stein, a former speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford who is best known for playing a boring teacher in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

The film opened at #10 when it was released to U.S. theatres April 18; but as of this writing, there are no plans to release it in Canada, even though producer Walt Ruloff lives on Bowen Island and writer Kevin Miller, a former critic for Hollywood Jesus and an occasional contributor to BCCN, lives in Abbotsford.

As with a number of recent films, Expelled owes much of its success to controversy – beginning with the accusations made as far back as last September by atheist scientists Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers, who claimed they were interviewed for the film under false pretenses, and had no idea of its religious inclinations.

Whether that’s true is not for me to say. But the film itself – which I saw at a local post-production facility in downtown Vancouver – certainly plunges into its controversial subject matter in a way that is designed to get attention, provoke laughter, stimulate outrage and generally produce more heat than light.

In many ways, Expelled follows the template set by Michael Moore and his imitators. Stein injects his interviews with deadpan humour – telling one ID theorist that he was tossed out of the academic establishment for being a “bad boy” – and occasionally he wanders around, looking lost outside the Discovery Institute in Seattle or being turned away from the Smithsonian by a security guard.

The film, directed by Nathan Frankowski, also uses cheesy archival footage to mock some of the atheists’ claims; and the closest it ever comes to explaining what ID theory actually is, and thus whether it deserves any sort of scientific attention, comes via a cheeky animated sequence on ‘The Casino of Life’ that is similar in feel and tone to the history-of-guns bit in Moore’s Bowling for Columbine.

Alas, the film also cherry-picks quotes in a way that will be disappointing to anyone who is familiar with the debate over ID and the origins of life.

Continue article >>

British scientists-turned-clergymen Alister McGrath and John Polkinghorne are dropped in for a few seconds to explain that religion and science can get along, but no mention is made of the fact that both men subscribe to evolutionary theory and are critical of ID.

And Stein’s climactic interview with Dawkins includes an exchange that is treated like a major ‘gotcha!’ moment, yet if anything it suggests there is something fundamentally dishonest, or at least disingenuous, about the ID movement.

Put simply: To assure people that ID really is science and not just religion in disguise, ID theorists have been insisting for years that they make no claims about the nature of the Intelligent Designer himself. He could be natural, like an alien, or he could be supernatural, like God; all they want to do is look for evidence of design itself. But the moment Dawkins runs with the possibility that aliens might have created life on Earth, the movie pounces as if to say the very idea is absurd.

Matters are further confused by the fact that the film never acknowledges that some ID theorists actually believe in evolution, albeit perhaps only to a point.

Instead, the film allows the viewer to think that ID and evolution are natural enemies – an idea deepened by the film’s efforts to link Darwinism with the Holocaust.

The problem is, evolutionary theory – which is both older and newer than Darwin, by the way – is either true or it isn’t, and it doesn’t matter much whether people have abused the theory, any more than it matters whether people have abused, say, the teachings of Jesus. Within the film, Dawkins links the Bible to genocide just as surely as Stein links evolution to genocide, so what good does that tactic really do?

What we need is a film that can explore the limits of science, the nature of scientific research and the interplay of science and faith in a way that makes us all better thinkers.

But would anyone want to be involved, and would it get so much publicity from the media, and would it do as well at the box office? Probably not.

* * *

Vancouverites, mark your calendars. Silent Light, the widely-acclaimed, award-winning film by Carlos Reygadas about a love triangle among Mexican Mennonites, is coming to the VanCity Theatre June 5 – 12. See vifc.org.

filmchatblog.blogspot.com

May 2008

Comments

It is indeed a great relief to see an honest, unbiased review of this movie on a Christian website. If only the rest of the religious reviewers were like you. Thank you, you've shown a very frustrated atheist that not all Christians are happy to overlook dishonest tactics and propaganda just because it suits their worldview.
#1 Tyrone - 04/29/2008 - 03:27

The attempts to link evolution with the Holocaust (and, by film clips, with Communism), are particularly vile. Hitler 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 majority of the millions who died under those regimes.

Ironically, the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have been much better off if their leaders had accepted neo-Darwinian evolution.
#2 Ray Ingles - 04/29/2008 - 06:00

I agree with Tyrone on this one. I'm a Christian losing my
faith entirely because of how ignorant my church is. It sounds unbelievable I guess, but the actual institution of Christianity (I still believe in some sort of God) really seems evil to me now. Everybody I know is so self-righteous and only hear what they want to hear, and this movie scared me, it really is scare tactics and propaganda. My parents and friends have no idea yet how I feel, they loved this movie and I think Tyrone is right about the "worldview". This site is reassuring that religious doesn't need to mean ignorant though.
#3 Nate - 04/29/2008 - 07:19

Wonderful review, can't say more than that.
#4 Shana - 04/29/2008 - 10:35

I've seen the film rather than just commenting on the review and I believe it succeeds in doing exactly what it set out to do. It illustrates that Atheism is just as much a matter of faith as Christianity or any other religion.

There is some scientific basis in evolutionary theory but the stretch to believe everything happened just by accident is in no way proven by science and, in fact, a sober read of the scientific material points to such a staggering statistical impossibly as to not be practical. Physicists try to resolve the statistical problem of our unlikely planet, in our unlikely solar system, in our unlikely universe; with the multi-world/multi-universe hypothesis; a statistical plug-value that would make even the most far-fetched science fiction writer blush with embarrassment.

Biologists serve their inferences by seeing random organization of highly complex data where none of this has ever been observed in nature. Our observations of evolution never involve the complicated morphing from one species to another as suggested by evolution. Instead observed evolution always involves a ‘less and less’ complicated genome. Observed ‘mutations’ almost always cause the fragile biological systems to collapse but never for a frog to become a bird. Darwin noted this gap of evidence himself and it is yet to be refuted.

To me the historical record of Jesus Christ is an equally if not more valid proof. The fact that most of His disciples were recorded to have suffered horrendous deaths rather than deny the Father serves to confirm; …this not even mentioning the unexplained and radical effect of Christ’s teachings on modern Western culture.

In summary if you want to believe that there is no God then I suggest that it takes substantially more ‘faith’ than to be a Christian. At worst the scientific data leaves any honest scientist who has studied it agnostic and thus as subject to the Word of God as to the words of Dawkins.
#5 Jimmy Hogan, Nashville TN - 04/29/2008 - 11:24

It should be mentioned, too, that the writer wholly and unfairly assails the credibility of Ben Stein in the opening paragraphs. I am not sure if the link will come through on this site but if it does not then just Google Ben Stein Biography and find out for yourself if he is an ignorant boob as characterized by the article.

http://www.benstein.com/bio.html
#6 Jimmy Hogan, Nashville TN - 04/29/2008 - 11:33

Mr Hogan,

1. The theory of evolution does not speak to how life began. Saying that it claims everything "happened just by accident" is a straw man argument. Evolution explains the differentiation of species and nothing more.

2. Your claim that scientific data "leaves any honest scientist who has studied it agnostic ..." sounds like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, since by your definition any scientist who doesn't become "agnostic" after examining the data must be dishonest.

Why is it that proponents of Intelligent Design can never make a case for their beliefs? All they can do is attack evolution, apparently in the belief that if they can find some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution, it will automatically validate ID.
#7 Doug - 04/29/2008 - 14:03

Mr Hogan, your sentence: "Observed ‘mutations’ almost always cause the fragile biological systems to collapse but never for a frog to become a bird" reveals what a deep, deep misunderstanding of evolution you have. Neither Darwin nor anyone else has ever claimed that a species can magically "turn into" another, as Moses' staff into a snake or Kirk Cameron's ridiculously ignorant "Crocoduck". What the facts - what 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, medicine, 50 years of genetics and most other natural sciences - show us is that your frog and bird (or your good self and the chimps in the San Diego Zoo) had a Common Ancestor. NOT that they transformed like a caterpillar into a moth. Same as the beagle next door and the wolf in the wilderness. Same as you and your father - your father didn't turn into YOU, but you have shared heritage. Heritage that stretches back 4 billion years! Before attacking evolution, it would really pay to understand it first, even on a base level, instead of criticising with those naive strawman tales about frogs turning into ducks.

"In summary if you want to believe that there is no God then I suggest that it takes substantially more ‘faith’ than to be a Christian."

A small yet important error in semantics there. Atheists don't actively "believe there is no God", they simply don't believe there is one. Believing *something isn't there* is not the same as simply not holding the belief that it is. We don't have "faith" that there's no God, we simply remain unconvinced that God exists. Insufficient evidence, less-than-compelling arguments from religious people. We have doubts about religious stories and those doubts have yet to be assuaged to our satisfaction. Most of us start out as religious people ourselves and we've heard pretty much every argument that can be thrown at us.

To close: atheism is as much a religion as BALD is a hair colour and Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby.
#8 Hank - 04/29/2008 - 23:27

Doug,

To answer your question...
"Why is it that proponents of Intelligent Design can never make a case for their beliefs?"

Answer:

ID has made good scientific case, which, as the movie points out, has been stifled by the people who have hijacked science to call it theirs, ie the evolutionists. In the movie, the big bullys of evolution are asked to give an explanation of life's origins, and they fumble and give ridiculous answers. Go see the movie and think a little bit... just a little. That may exercise your brain but it is healthy.

As for the Canadian christian article, if they believe in this unproven, ridiculous theory of evolution, God help them.
#9 Ashok - 04/30/2008 - 05:16

Ashok, I think you must have seen an entirely different movie than almost everyone else who saw it. Even arch-conservative John Derbyshire of the National Review panned it as "a blood libel on Western civilization."

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=

Intelligent Design may very well be true... but IT'S NOT SCIENCE. There is no way to prove it one way or the other, which is a cornerstone of the scientific method. At best, ID is a conjecture, and as such, it does not deserve to be made equal to a theory that has been tested and refined for over a century.
#10 Doug - 04/30/2008 - 09:50

Ashok:
There is not one jot of scientific evidence to support ID. Part of the reason for this is that no-one has even been able to state a theory of ID (remember, a theory is a testable explanation for a body of facts or evidence) so no-one has been able to design any experiment or collect any evidence that would support the concept.

All that IDers have ever presented is long-refuted criticism of the theory of evolution based on personal disbelief, misrepresentations and lies. Even if valid, these criticisms would support ID no more than they support the Great Chain of Being.

Life's origins are not part of the theory of evolution, the answers are not known yet and what makes you think the answers given were ridiculous (they weren't)? Do you actually know anything at all about current abiogenesis hypotheses?
#11 Richard Simons - 04/30/2008 - 09:53

Final word: If "Expelled" is such a good movie, why are its producers BRIBING Christian schools to make their students go see it?

http://ianramjohn.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/the-expelled-challenge/
#12 Doug - 04/30/2008 - 11:25

There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution either. Why does it have so much support from a christian organisation in Canada. You will have much to answer for. You are those that are deluded in the following passages from thessalonians:


2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

The Lie you are believing is this "theory of evolution", which is so ridiculous to me (I have a masters of science in biomedical engineering from the University of Dundee in Scotland). Wake up christians before you are led to your slaughter by all the brainwashing that you have been subjected to. There are many who will scoff at what I right... so be it... but try to think just a little bit ... if you are a christian.. The Bible says man's sin has caused death to come into the world. This evolution lie says that man came into the world as a result of death (dying of the species that could not survive).

As a Christian, you should be ashamed to even consider the theory of evolution. Is not God more powerful then having to use a cruel evolutionary method. If he is not able to bring about the world without evolution, then He is not worth worshipping, because his powers are limited. But no, God DID NOT USE EVOLUTION FOR CREATION.
#13 Ashok - 05/01/2008 - 18:05

" Is not God more powerful then having to use a cruel evolutionary method. If he is not able to bring about the world without evolution, then He is not worth worshipping, because his powers are limited."

Ashok, refelct onwhat youjust wrote.

You just told G-D almighty what He could and could not do.

That woudl be a violation of the First Commandment, wouldn't it?

Excellent review, thank you
#14 JRM - 05/01/2008 - 20:54

On Ben Stein’s Expelled….: “If the fittest ARE to be the ones who survive, why are we so very zealous in ‘saving the planet?’ Maybe there exists not only the Creator, but the Savior in whose ‘image’ we ARE intricately designed.”
#15 David Junker - 05/05/2008 - 01:40

Jimmy Hogan wrote: "It should be mentioned, too, that the writer wholly and unfairly assails the credibility of Ben Stein in the opening paragraphs."

I don't know what you mean. Is it not true that Ben Stein is a former Republican speechwriter who is best known -- in movie circles, anyway -- for his small role in Ferris Bueller's Day Off? Note how even Expelled concludes on a note that makes an explicit reference to Stein's role in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Where is Stein's credibility being "assailed" here?

Ashok wrote: "ID has made good scientific case, which, as the movie points out..."

Well, no, the movie *doesn't* point out that ID has made a good scientific case -- and that's a problem. If the movie wants to argue that ID deserves a place at the table in the name of "academic freedom", then it needs to show that ID is a genuine scientific theory that deserves such freedom -- and it never even tries. For more on that, see this critique at National Review:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWI5Mzk4YzMxMTNjM2UxZGZlMGMzNTUzN2QwMTU3ZTY=&w=MA==
#16 Peter T Chattaway - 05/05/2008 - 03:15

Ashok, contrary to what you wrote when you said "There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution either.", there is actually an enormous wealth of evidence for evolution. One needs only to look to find it.

One excellent source is Talkorigins.org.

If you are scientifically minded (and I suspect you are not)here's a link to an encyclopedic compendium of evidence supporting evolution: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There's a lot to read there, and it may be more than you're wiling to tackle. So here's a link to a collection of more general "must read" topics: http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html

And finally, just in case you feel like "debating" people who do accept the evidence for evolution, here is a very large list of arguments you may want to avoid using as they have been soundly refuted: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Best wishes
#17 Tim - 05/10/2008 - 17:05

Comment
To prevent automated Bots form spamming, please enter the text you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.



Email (won't be shown)
Name

canadianchristianity.com encourages readers feedback, and in the forum interaction. We will not edit your comments, but reserve the right to select responses and delete any inappropriate ones. All comments are immediately forwarded, read and screened. To report offensive or inappropriate comments, contact our editor.