Expelled is really about refusing to let The System dictate your life. Even if I didn’t have any interest in evolution and intelligent design theories, I would want to see the movie. But I am interested in the beginning of life and especially interested in how we live, now, with freedom from dogma.
Scientific dogma, that is. Sure, religion has dogma, too, and has done a lot of damage to culture and to individuals. I don’t deny that. I’m not a big fan of any religious system, including the one overseeing the church I’m a member of. Science has always been the Hero, the knight who rides in and slices away the stodgy chains of the church-system so people can see the true light of reason and live healthier, happier, freer lives. Isn’t that the way it goes?
Not really, says Ben Stein, and then shows us exactly what he means. The majority of the scientific community has opposed the creationist stance of the religious community for a long time. What’s happening now, however, is that the majority of the scientific community is opposed to letting its own members – not religious people, mind you – even discuss the possibility of intelligent design in regards to how life began.
Stein interviews several members of the scientific community, all with illustrious degrees, credentials, research history, and experience, and all of whom have been ostracized for mentioning intelligent design. Not necessarily promoting it, just mentioning it.
Stein’s interviews with these ostracized members, as well as his discussions with various anti-intelligent design evolutionists, plays out over a background of his own personal search into what Darwinism has done for our world. His visit to Germany and discussion of the Darwinism-Nazism link is poignant and important and he then reminds us of our own American culture’s foray into eugenics, with its lasting results. Planned Parenthood is one of them.
Stein maintains a pleasantly puzzled tone through out most of the movie. His questions are more on the “Let’s figure out what’s going on” line of inquiry than the “You one-sided evolutionist, how dare you” diatribe. That approach makes the very last moments of the film, an interview with
Richard Dawkins, even richer.
I listen to NPR during the day, and they talk about movies from Sundance Film Festival, movies at mainstream theaters, movies with people I’ve never heard of, documentaries, screenplays, and all the actors, directors, writers, and other workers involved in these productions. In all their reviewing and discussing, there has been only one mention of this movie, which was more an aside than anything. In this case, NPR, as well as other media, is upholding a premise the movie expounds upon: it’s easier to ignore the few people asking the difficult questions than answer them fairly.
Annie-
If what is said in Expelled is correct, why do you think Reasons to Believe put out this statement?
“In Reasons To Believe’s interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.
Our main concern about EXPELLED is that it paints a distorted picture. It certainly doesn’t match our experience.”
Well, Benjamin Franklin, I suspect that the difference between creationism (as a religious+scientific view) versus intelligent design (as something to be considered in evolutionary science) is key.
Evolutionists are not really “threatened” by creationists: their basic models are entirely different. They operate on two different playing fields. How creationists throw the ball around on their field doesn’t really matter to evolutionists, because the Creation model is assumed to be faith-based and thus, not of scientific concern.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, is being considered by scientists on the same field with traditional Darwinists. Hence those scientists may be encountered the ostracism which Stein’s movie relates, while the creationists from Reasons to Believe may encounter “an increasing openness” though, I suspect, well tempered with a condescending amusement.
I may be totally wrong: I don’t know much about the debate, but I think there’s lots more going on than anyone knows, and we should know, so right or wrong, go watch the movie.