America wouldn’t be America without the freedoms it affords its citizens. This adage has been used to describe our country probably since its inception, and I doubt that anyone would argue this point with Ben Stein. After seeing his new documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, however, that may be the only unarguable point. I admit that as a zoologist and science enthusiast, I was biased going into the film, and I knew that it would get my hackles up. What surprised me though was that I found myself upset not just for the scientists that the film misrepresents—I expected that—but for someone who spends most of the movie preaching about freedom and free speech, Stein edited a lot of important information out of his film. For someone who espouses a movement asking for “equal time” for a religious theory in the science classroom he sure didn’t give science equal time in a movie to promote a religious theory. Not that I expected him to do so.
I could go on ad nauseum with my criticisms of this film, and my critiques of the standard anti-evolution arguments would take up pages themselves. I will leave that for another time, since they are becoming cliché anyhow. I have other criticisms, too, such as Stein’s stylistic choices. The footage of concentration camps and the Berlin Wall being erected as backdrops for his introduction to the “debate” were a bit overblown and, frankly, they aren’t fair comparisons, which becomes clear as the film drones on. The snippets of 1950’s propaganda films taken out of context between interviews with scientists made me weary. The references to the first amendment grew tiresome. The whining about the “witch hunt” that about a dozen scientists and journalists have had to endure—plus the “many more” who conveniently refused to speak on camera for fear of repercussions—was a purely rhetorical move to convince people who already believe that this battle between religion and science is proof of coming Armageddon. However, what I take most issue with is how a majority of those interviewed, as well as most of the arguments posed in the film, are out of context. Not that I didn’t expect this to be the case.
Stein interviews many scientists, including some who believe in Intelligent Design. He whines for them and with them about the persecution they have had to endure when they have tried to present ID research to scientific journals. Their articles aren’t accepted or printed, they were fired, they are now “black-listed”. This looks, to the casual or uneducated observer, like an injustice, like the big bad scientists are picking on the creationists yet again, but it is—shock!—taken out of context. What he predictably leaves out of these discussions is the fact that the research these scientists were presenting wasn’t science, and for that matter, he never explains why ID proponents think they have a scientific argument.
Stein also interviews evolutionary biologists and experts like Eugenie Scott from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE: www.ncseweb.org/). He allows them to explain that evolution by natural selection is a fact, but doesn’t let them describe that a fact in science has an airtight argument to support it, including empirical evidence that has been replicated in many experiments. He lets them try to explain the basics of the theory, but not the connotations that word carries in the scientific community. Stein even corners several scientists into saying that the more they learned about the theory of natural selection the less they believed in a creator. Scientists, by Stein’s conclusion (based on the 3-4 scientists who admitted this) are anti-God.
I expected to be irritated by the same tired arguments against evolution, the anti-atheistic attacks by the ID proponents, and even expected the scientists and science itself to be misrepresented. However, I was surprised by the misrepresentation of ID as well.
Perhaps misrepresentation is an overstatement, since the basis of the theory was never really elucidated from creationism. The chief experts on this position are The Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA, a “non-partisan public policy think-tank conducting research on technology, science and culture, economics, and foreign affairs” (www.discovery.org). They were key players in the anti-evolution court challenges in recent years, including the highly publicized Dover, PA trial. The crux of their “evidence” for an intelligent designer is the irreducible complexity in life and they are usually careful refer to this individual as a designer. It has always been my understanding that ID proponents work diligently to avoid using the terms Creator or creationism, so either that has changed or Stein is misrepresenting them as well. My friend, a non-scientist—yet not particularly religious either, said that she didn’t know much about ID going into the film, and she guessed she didn’t know much about it afterward. I actually felt myself getting angry for the Discovery Institute, who didn’t seem to get much face time in a movie based on ID. I most certainly did not expect this.
Despite the conclusions based on too-small sample size, the comparisons of scientists to Hitler, or the misrepresentation of the positions, I left the theatre less exasperated than I expected. I rolled my eyes at Stein’s inane attempts at humor, scoffed at his incessant whining, and all the while a Latin phrase was looping through my head: res ipsa loquitur (1). The movie wasn’t an attempt to explain the misunderstood underdogs who believe in Intelligent Design. Instead, like the propaganda films that act as filler and a poor attempt at humor, it was Stein’s diatribe against the establishment; a film meant to rally support from those who already see the world this way. Stein made a point of reiterating that America is free, there is freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of press. He criticizes the scientific discipline for not letting people speak, but he leaves out the most important part: they weren’t speaking science. He should have worried less about the religious affiliations of scientists and more about how he looks like a hypocrite for editing the speakers in his own film. But really, in this never-ending argument between the natural and the supernatural, the believers and the non-believers, the thinkers and the non-thinkers, isn’t this to be expected?
1This literally means, "the thing itself speaks" but in general is translated "the thing speaks for itself" (www.wikipedia.com).
No comments:
Post a Comment