Ben Stein's Film - Expelled

So Ben Stein made a movie "Expelled" - a relatively horrible one, and I intend to argue for this claim.

Ben Stein calls the film a Documentary. The film itself is bookended by a discussion of Freedom. The content of the film is the subject of Intelligent Design as it relates to evolution. From the bookends, one might quickly ascertain that the film was made to explore implications of Academic freedom with regards to ID/Evol.

So why did I think the film was horrible? Well, I have three primary complaints, and I'll address those in turn, but first I want to offer my conclusions (not argument, I have some, but I'm not providing those here) about the intersection of ID/Evol.

To begin with, I typically side with individuals like the late Stephen J Gould. Gould, for those who may not be aware, argued that Religion and Science each engage (or should engage) distinct separate fields of inquiry. Science has its domain and this is entirely separate from religion. Religion has its domain, and its entirely separate from science. I tend to believe a heavily nuanced version of this position -and implicit in this belief is a particular way of understanding ID/Evol. Namely, that they have nothing to do with each other. Evolution, even of distinct species, doesn't entail anything to me about the "why" of how evolution occurred. Evolution is a mechanism (of the existence of things), in short. Intelligent Design isn't about a mechanism of creation, it's a hypothesis about a different facet of the world. It answers a question about "how" mechanisms come to be.

Well, something like the above is what I think, I'd need more space and time to nuance the position properly.

So, What's wrong with Ben's movie?

First, the film masks itself as trying to right a particular wrong. It argues that there is an established scientific authority that fails to look at diverse viewpoints, in particular ID viewpoints. The film argues that there is a wall in the academic and scientific worlds, and this wall must come down.

The film might be correct on those accounts, but the viewer will never know because the film film fails to live up to its own ideals. It almost exclusively shows singular viewpoints as it draws the battle lines. Rather than showing a lack of the wall, it highlights the two sides to the exclusion of other views. It shows only the most "reasonable" ID supporters, failing to recognize ID supporters who, for example, are explicitly Young Earth Creationists. It also fails to show the more "reasonable" evolutionary supporters, e.g. Pope John Paul II (see for example an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996) or the work of Stephen J Gould.

For a film that argues that a diverse range of opinions should be heard, and analysed on the merits of their own evidence and arguments - it fails to live up to its own ideal. It only shows opinions that fuel the fire that there exists a wall - it fails to engage even tacitly with counter-arguments.

Second, the film often appeals to an argument that I might label, an appeal to ignorance. The film often seems to press on supporters of Darwinism to define where life comes from, Ben Stein presses this very point in the final excerpted clip with Richard Dawkins. I wonder what they intend to prove by such displays? To say that, "My way must be good because your way can't answer a question mine can" isn't to show how your evidence is strong for your case. It's like saying "you can't prove aliens don't exist, so I can believe in them." The argument form is fallacious.

But perhaps Ben wasn't making such an argument? Well, besides the obvious wondering about why the material is included - it also reflects the absolute lack of analysis about the evidence in favor of ID. Ben's film is designed to show a conflict, but a necessary part of showing that legitimate conflict exists would be to [i]show[/i] the conflict inherent in the two positions - the film never does that. Outside of a couple loaded definitions, it fails to even present an argument in favor of ID. Let alone to actually show how the arguments conflict. It tells you to believe in a conflict by showing people who think that conflict exists. But that's just anecdotal.

In sum, the primary "argument" of the film is fallacious.

Third (and finally), the film engages in seriously questionable speculation. I won't develop this in detail, it's so inane to me that I can't really feel the desire to flesh it out. The film tries to establish connections between Nazism/Darwinism and also between Communism/Scientific Establishment. In the same vein, it also asserts an appalling implication about Planned Parenthood and Eugenics. One sympathetic interviewee was nice enough to bring up the terms "Necessary" and "Sufficient". His point was that something like Darwinism isn't 'Sufficient' to bring about a Nazi worldview - but that it was necessary. Unfortunately, Ben didn't listen to this nice gentleman because the movie goes on to create a case for the connection that throws sand in the face of the necessary/sufficient distinction. It's appalling.



So, the National Center for Science Education has a website that intends to show where the film and makers used some shady interview and production tactics. Check it out at www.expelledexposed.com if that's your shtick. Folks who know me are well aware that I find some real value in documentary films that might use shady tactics: Michael Moore is definitely not the "nicest" interviewer in the country, and yet I find some of his films to be wonderful. So the NCSE's website doesn't really fit into my complaint. The website does have information that might be worthwhile - so I thought I'd point it out for sake of being complete.