![\"\"](\"https:\/\/1.bp.blogspot.com\/_MwnH1kpbPRM\/SDKQqSdLp6I\/AAAAAAAABlE\/kKgkMQ4fMUc\/s1600-h\/expelled-blackboard.jpg\")
<\/a>Various blogs and websites \u2014 here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a> \u2014 are reporting that the pro-Intelligent Design documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed<\/a><\/i> may be coming to Canadian theatres June 6. The rumour had better be right, since Ben Stein has already begun to promote the film on Canadian TV, chatting about it a few nights ago on CBC\u2019s The Hour<\/a><\/i> with George Stroumboulopoulos \u2014 where, bizarrely, he seemed to imply that gravity and the laws of thermodynamics fall under the heading of evolutionary theory.<\/span><\/p>\n
This reminds me, I\u2019ve been meaning to post some extra thoughts that I\u2019ve had on the film since I first commented on it one month ago<\/a>, shortly after it was released in the United States. (Many thanks, by the way, to the people who wrote me to answer David Berlinski\u2019s question and explain what a \u201cspecies\u201d is!)<\/p>\n Let\u2019s start with John Derbyshire<\/a>\u2018s post from a few weeks back, when he noted that Ben Stein made the following comments while promoting this film on the Trinity Broadcasting Network<\/a>:<\/p>\n When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed \u2026 that was horrifying beyond words, and that\u2019s where science \u2014 in my opinion, this is just an opinion \u2014 that\u2019s where science leads you. . . .<\/p>\n Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, it\u2019s a good thing so-called Intelligent Design theory isn\u2019t science, then! Otherwise it might kill someone.<\/p>\n Okay, that\u2019s being snarky. But you have to wonder why a film that demands \u201cacademic freedom\u201d for people pursuing a, let\u2019s say, unconventional sort of science would be constructed and promoted in such a way as to denigrate science itself. How can the makers of this film say they want ID to have a place at the table when the table itself is so horrifying to them? (I have always found it interesting that, when I interviewed Stein<\/a> myself, he issued his strongest denunciation of scientists while answering a question I had asked about the film\u2019s treatment of ID<\/i> scientists!)<\/p>\n In a similar vein, one of the best critiques I have read of this film was written by Jim Manzi<\/a> and posted a couple weeks ago at National Review<\/i>. Manzi makes much the same point that I made last month<\/a>, regarding how the movie needs to demonstrate some of the actual alleged science behind ID if it wants ID to enjoy any sort of \u201cacademic freedom\u201d \u2014 but he makes the point more methodically, and in greater detail.<\/p>\n Then there is the political element.<\/p>\n When I interviewed Stein, he said he was approached by the film\u2019s producers<\/a> because he was one of the few \u201cconservatives\u201d in Hollywood. But is ID necessarily a \u201cconservative\u201d movement? Various people in the film argue that ID, as a science, is not tied to any particular religion \u2014 and indeed, Stein himself is Jewish, though the film still fits broadly within the category of \u201cChristian filmmaking\u201d \u2014 so why would they imply that it is tied to a particular end of the political spectrum? (As my colleague Josh Hurst<\/a> points out, it is odd how \u201cfootage of Ronald Reagan starts to pop up everywhere\u201d in the film\u2019s final moments.) Shouldn\u2019t ID be just as politically neutral as it is religiously neutral? And shouldn\u2019t it be presented as something that stands or falls on its own scientific<\/i> merits?<\/p>\n Matters are further confused when the film quotes Eugenie Scott<\/a> to the effect that many Christians believe evolution and religion are compatible, and then the film cuts to a journalist who asserts first that all religions can be broken down into \u201cliberal\u201d and \u201cconservative\u201d camps, and then that liberals will side with anyone against the \u201cfundamentalists\u201d. The clear implication seems to be that only \u201cliberals\u201d will accept evolutionary theory \u2014 yet surely there are many politically and even theologically conservative Christians and Jews who accept it, or are open to it, as well. (Hint: One of them is writing this post.)<\/p>\n Finally, a point of terminology.<\/p>\n One of the filmmakers wrote me after my review<\/a> went online to say that I had gotten my facts wrong when I wrote that \u201cthe film never acknowledges that some ID theorists actually believe in evolution, albeit perhaps only to a point.\u201d He sent me a few quotes from the film which, he claimed, did<\/i> affirm \u201cevolution\u201d of some sort. But when you look at them closely, it turns out they don\u2019t \u2014 at least not in the sense that most people use that word.<\/p>\n Paul Nelson<\/a>, a young-earther, affirms nothing more than \u201cchange over time\u201d, while Jonathan Wells<\/a> affirms nothing more than \u201cminor changes within species\u201d \u2014 and he explicitly belittles Darwin\u2019s efforts \u201cto show how this same process leads to new species, in fact, to every species.\u201d William Dembski<\/a> comes closest to affirming \u201cevolution\u201d as most people use the term, except he pours on lots of qualifiers and never mentions any of the particulars of evolutionary theory except to marginalize them; after stressing the limitations of \u201cnatural selection\u201d, whatever those limitations might be, he concludes: \u201cWhat we\u2019re finding with Darwin is that he had some valid insights, but it\u2019s not the whole picture.\u201d<\/p>\n So nowhere in this film do any of the IDers affirm, say, common descent, which is a key part of the sort of evolutionary theory that I had in mind when I wrote that sentence in my review. Nowhere does anybody say, as I gather leading ID theorist Michael Behe<\/a> has said, that animals did evolve more or less as Darwin said they did, but there are just some things we can\u2019t account for at the microscopic, cellular level. So I think my point stands. (Behe does not appear in this film at all, by the way \u2014 though he does<\/i> appear in the ID-skeptical documentary Flock of Dodos<\/a><\/i> (2006).)<\/p>\n The film has grossed $7.5 million<\/a> since opening in the United States five weekends ago, which makes it one of the dozen top-grossing documentaries<\/a> of all time. It will be interesting to see what waves this film makes, if any, should it actually be released here in Canada \u2014 especially given that it is<\/i> a Canadian production.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Various blogs and websites \u2014 here, here, and here \u2014 are reporting that the pro-Intelligent Design documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed may be coming to Canadian theatres June 6. The rumour had better be right, since Ben Stein has already begun to promote the film on Canadian TV, chatting about it a few nights ago […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1116,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-865","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n