Expelled reviewed

I went to the 7:10 showing of Expelled  last evening. I have to admit, I was a bit afraid to see it. You see, I am used to seeing things produced by Christians that are just embarrasing.  I was kind of afraid that the movie would go way over the top, make outrageous claims, and lose any credibility that they may have had.  The events of the last couple of weeks, with PZ’s black-listing and various claims of copyright infringement, didn’t help. So, I was prepared to write a review dealing with the good, the bad, and the just plain ugly.  I am surprised, then, to not have to do that.  Expelled is a pretty decent documentary.  In fact, it’s fairly brilliant.

Now, I know I’m going to be called delusional (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) for that last statement, but I’m just being honest. I thought they did a darn good job putting the film together, and that they acheived their goal.  It was pretty fast-moving, coherant, and at times humorous. I thought the editing was quite good. The use of old b&w film clips to make points was well-done.

However, it wasn’t perfect. I thought the opening b&w sequence really didn’t fit the rest of the movie. Certainly they continued to use b&w throughout, but it was a quite dark and depressing way to start the film, and really didn’t have the same feel as the movie itself.  Two things that could have been left out, in my opinion, are the two clips where copyright claims are being raised: The CGI bit on the inner working of the cell is cool, certainly, but really didn’t add to the movie, and actually seemed a bit out of place. The same is true, in my opinion, of the short Imagine bit. It wasn’t necessary, and if anything was distracting.  

Before I say any more about Expelled, let me offer a little autobiographical information. While I have always enjoyed science, until the last year or two I have not paid much attention to the whole Darwinism/ID debate. I have seen a few TV documentaries over the years, none of which were favorable at all to any non-Darwinian position, but other than that, I paid little attention. I enjoy astronomy, physics (I especially enjoy quantum theory) and cosmology, but have little interest in biology (other than going to the zoo) and don’t like chemistry at all.

It was only after I reconnected with my friend Mike that I started catching up on the Darwinism thing. I started reading a number of blogs and articles on various sides of the issues, finding that not all evolutionists agreed on all issues, and neither did the non-Darwinists (I’m using the terms generically). Since then I have formed my own opinions on a number of issues, and am still undecided on many. I accept that some evolution happens, as evolution is loosely defined. I don’t – at the moment – believe in common descent.  I am, overall, something of a skeptic, and that goes for religious issues as well as in science or any other topic. I always question the status quo, whatever it is. So, I have read all sides with a skeptical eye, discounting many on both sides of the issues.

What I found as I watched Expelled was that the film fairly represented the positions of those interviewed; in fact, most information came from the individuals themselves rather than from Ben Stein, who served to put the information into context.  I also thought that the overall point of the film, that there is a Darwinist establishment who is more concerned with self-protection than allowing any real questioning of the issues, reflected what I have seen in my own reading. 

The film won’t change the minds of any who are already entrenched in their positions. It doesn’t give any pat answers. What it does is expose issues that deserve to be brought to light. For those who are not already entrenched in their positions, it may prompt them to do further study, and will of course let them make up their own mind.

I thought Will Provine expressed best what I would expect from a true scientist, that people should be allowed to examine all of the evidence, and decide for themselves what to make of it, whether it be some form of ID, or as in Provine’s case, a purely materialistic (and fatalistic) viewpoint.  Eugenie Scott and PZ Myers were themselves; no real surprises there. Dawkins provided some comic relief, with his rambling thoughts about ID and aliens; pretty much the whole audience broke into laughter during that segment.

One thing that surprised me what that David Berlinski was not identified as an agnostic, which I think would have given his opinions a bit more punch, seeing as he is perhaps the only one interviewed who is not committed to either deism or atheism.

I also thought the segment dealing with the Darwin – Nazi connection was fairly well done. The interview with Uta George, the director of the Hadamar Gas Chamber Memorial, was absolutely shocking; I found her complete detachment to the horrors of eugenics – and her refusal to say anything negative about it – horrifying. My son thought she was only representing the Nazi position, but to me it seemed that she really bought into it. And, by the way, she emphasized several times that those in charge of the eugenics programs were influenced by Darwinism.

I saw the film tonite with my oldest son and his girlfriend (who chose to see Expelled rather than the new Jackie Chan movie). He commented that it seemed to him that the first part of the movie focused on how ID is not tied to religion, but the 2nd part seemed to try to tie the issues to religion. My other son wants to see it, but was sick, so I’ll probably watch it again with him in a couple of days and will comment further on this and any other new thoughts.

 

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews | Tagged , , , , | 13 Comments

That theory won’t hold water…

Here’s one of the more creative, over-reaching attempts at framing (aka spinning):

“Stein employs the common dodge of enumerating all the admittedly unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and using this to refute the whole idea. But all scientific knowledge is built this way. A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can’t therefore argue that the net doesn’t exist. Just ask the fish” (Jeffrey Kluger, “Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin“, TIME magazine, Thursday, Apr. 10, 2008).

Kluger doesn’t say very much in this very brief dismissal of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but does say just enough to embarrass himself.

Speaking of embarrassing themselves, the National Center for Science Education is doing it’s part, putting up an anti-Expelled site called Expelled Exposed. They’re obviously afraid, of this movie which, as they say, “is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.” There is no spoon. Apparently the NCSE is now resorting to postmodernism to make their case. The current mantras for scientism appears to be “we aren’t trying to hold water, we’re just catching fish” and “there is no controversy.” Now, sit in the lotus position and chant… What is ironic is that their website only lends credibility to the claims of Expelled, which is focused on the suppression of free thought with regard to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. One reviewer’s impression coming away from the movie was that the science community was “scared to death of God.” Of course, this doesn’t apply to all of science, but I think this is correct with respect to scientism (the worldview that only that which is known through science is valid or real).

Remember, the movie isn’t even out yet. The real fireworks will start Friday… which reminds me, I should probably get my ticket now. I’ll write my own fair and balanced review after I’ve seen it.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 4 Comments

Comment courtesy

Michael Patton has posted a couple of great posts on how to conduct yourself as a Christian while debating issues online, especially the 2nd post, where he quotes from 2 Timothy 2:

“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition …”

and 1 Peter 3:

“But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.”

He also includes an interesting paragraph about who the worst offenders might be:

Sadly, many times this attitude is found more in my own conservative Calvinistic circles than in any other. For this I am sorry and ashamed. Sometimes Calvinists make the worst Calvinists. But, of course, it can be found in any group. Baptists have a knack for it. Even emergers can display the most angered, discounting, and arrogant spirit that I have ever seen.

It would be interesting, I think, to do a study on a variety of blogs to see which theological positions generate the most Christ-like comments. As I read a wide variety of blogs, including many with a very mixed audience, I have some of my own thoughts, but don’t know that my experience is broad enough to be accurate. I will say that in general, the most humble and loving responses seem to come from the various Eastern Orthodox folks, although that may be because they don’t tend to analyze issues and argue the same way that other Christians do. Lutherans also seem to be quite respectful, even when discussing some pretty intense internal issues. While I don’t want to provide my list of the worst offenders, I will say that I think Patton is quite perceptive.

I have found that fundamentalists of any stripe, including atheists (although they would bristle at being labeled fundamentalist), tend to be more antagonistic and offensive, often resorting to ridicule rather than entertaining any reasonable discussion.

It is possible for those of differing opinions to discuss issues respectfully. One of my occasional visitors actually admitted that he couldn’t comment respectfully; I now moderate all of his comments, but if he actually deals with an issue, I will let the comment through. My friend Mike disagrees with me more often than most, and we’re still friends; in fact, I appreciate him immensely. I can count on him to hold me accountable to any stupid things I say, even though I think he’s usually wrong. 😉   I can count on others like Quixote to challenge my thinking in other areas.  I appreciate these challenges, even if I get frustrated at times.

Occasionally I will subscribe to a particular discussion if it’s interesting, as is often the case on Michael Patton’s blog, Parchment & Pen. However, I usually have to unsubscribe after a day or so, as the discussion tends to get sidetracked or turns into bickering, which I expect is what motivated his recent posts.  There’s hardly anything worse than Christians fighting over theology, which is probably why so many Christians consider it evil.  It’s not evil, it’s the people… many of whom don’t understand the issues to begin with.  Patton offers this possibility:

Maybe it is because we are so insecure in our position that we think the louder we are the more true our words are. As I tell students, if you are not confident about what you are saying, you can first speak deeper, second speak louder. And if both of these don’t work, speak with a British accent!! In truth, I have found that the most fundamentally uninformed folk believers are often the most polemically militant because they, deep down, don’t really know why they believe what they believe. Their only recourse is not a gentle engagement, but a raised voice.

I think this rule is at work in areas other than theology – just listen to Hillary Clinton (cheap shot, but I couldn’t help it).  She hasn’t resorted to the British accent yet, but just wait.  Then, of course, there’s Richard Dawkins … but of course, he comes by the accent honestly.  (Okay, okay, I’ll stop with the cheap shots.)

Anyway, thanks to Michael Patton for some good thoughts about getting along online.

Posted in Random Thoughts | Leave a comment

Evolution and other megaphysical news

Today’s been a great day so far, if you rate your days on cool blog posts that you’ve read. It’s also a great day if you consider the weather, which is why I’m taking the afternoon off. But, that’s beside the point. Here are three good reads for a great Friday:

Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex

Earth’s first animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, not the simple sponge, according to a new find that has shocked scientists who didn’t imagine the earliest critter could be so complex.

Essentially, rather than the simpler organism evolving into the more complex, the complex comb jelly came first.  The comb jelly has both connective tissues and a nervous system, so if this is now thought to be the first multi-celled animal, it disrupts the previously-accepted tree of life.  Perhaps they’ve simply been looking at the wrong tree…

An interview with Ben Stein about Expelled

Some guy named Jerry interviewed Ben Stein. It’s an interesting little interview, and Ben talks a bit about his views about Darwinism and the Holocaust:

Because I had always had very serious anger about Darwinism, because I think Darwinism led to the Holocaust. I think this belief that there are superior and inferior races, and that the superior races had a moral duty to eliminate the inferior races was one of the main building blocks of Nazism and the Holocaust, and I never thought that had gotten out enough.

And, his thoughts about the current state of the scientific community:

I would say to Eugenie Scott, Yes, you are right; in reality, science is what the scientists say it is. That is the reality of the situation, but it’s not a good reality. It’s not a reality that advances knowledge. It’s not a reality that advances the frontiers of man’s understanding of the universe or even of the human body. Eugenie Scott, you’re right, in the sense that you say, “We’re the boss, do what we say.” And that is usually how life operates; the boss gets to decide what’s right and what’s wrong. As Bob Dylan said, “The princes make the rules for the wise men and the fools.” And in this world, big science are the princes. We’re asking for a world where there aren’t princes and kings. We’re asking for Thomas Jefferson’s world, where there is freedom of speech for everyone, where people can say, “Look, you have no proof of this. You’ve never seen a single mammalian species evolve into a separate species. It’s never been seen. So why don’t you give us a chance to give our explanation? You’ve never seen how a cell got to have a million moving parts. Let us give our explanation. You’ve never seen how the laws of gravity got created. Let us give our explanation. You’re right, Eugenie Scott, you’ve got all the power right now. We agree, you’ve got the power. We’re just little dinky nothings, just asking for what Thomas Jefferson asked the King of England for—freedom of speech, freedom of representation, freedom to make our points. We’re just little dinky nothings, but we have truth on our side.” Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The arc of history is long, but it inclines towards truth.”

You don’t have to agree with him, but if you’re interested in what Ben himself thinks and why he made the movie, it’s a good little interview.

Things you can say about a line

… a religious person could look at a line and say it is a car and you could not argue with them. They would just say you have to see the car by faith and that only atheists see a line because they don’t believe in religion. This is what you call a circle argument which is not a line as I have said already. This is why science and religion don’t mix. Science wants a line and religion wants a car or maybe a nice house. There is no use arguing.

It’s a “must read,” one of the more brilliant megaphysical pieces I’ve read in a long time. And, a great thing to read on such a great Friday. I’m going to go enjoy the sunshine now.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Humor and/or Sarcasm, Random Thoughts | 4 Comments