My friend and colleague Peter Chattaway has joined the growing list of Christian film critics who have very mixed feelings about Expelled: No Intelligence Necessary.
His review is published at BC Christian News.
He comments even further at his blog.
Here are some memorable moments:
Whether that’s true is not for me to say. But the film itself — which I saw at a local post-production facility in downtown Vancouver — certainly plunges into its controversial subject matter in a way that is designed to get attention, provoke laughter, stimulate outrage and generally produce more heat than light.
In many ways, Expelled follows the template set by Michael Moore and his imitators.
…
The film … uses cheesy archival footage to mock some of the atheists’ claims; and the closest it ever comes to explaining what ID theory actually is, and thus whether it deserves any sort of scientific attention, comes via a cheeky animated sequence on ‘The Casino of Life’ that is similar in feel and tone to the history-of-guns bit in Moore’s film Bowling for Columbine.
Alas, the film also cherry-picks quotes in a way that will be disappointing to anyone who is familiar with the debate over ID and the origins of life. British scientists-turned-clergymen Alister McGrath and John Polkinghorne are dropped in for a few seconds to explain that religion and science can get along, but no mention is made of the fact that both men subscribe to evolutionary theory and are critical of ID.
And Stein’s climactic interview with Dawkins includes an exchange that is treated like a major ‘gotcha!’ moment, yet if anything it suggests there is something fundamentally dishonest, or at least disingenuous, about the ID movement.
…
Matters are further confused by the fact that the film never acknowledges that some ID theorists actually believe in evolution, albeit perhaps only to a point. Instead, the film allows the viewer to think that ID and evolution are natural enemies — an idea deepened by the film’s efforts to link Darwinism with the Holocaust.
I think you all are mostly on the right track in wondering about the movie. It’s not so much a documentary as what I’d call an “argumentary,” which bears the same relationship to a documentary as an editorial or an opinion column bears to a news story.
On the other hand, anything that ticks off Yoko Ono and helps expose “Imagine” as the empty-headed flight of fancy that it is (per the news release in your other post) can’t be all bad.
PS — I’ve never heard anyone use the word “argumentary” about these movies before, but if someone has I happily attribute it to them and congratulate them on their mad word skilz.
I posted some comments about the movie under the Greg Wright blog link, but thought I’d throw out another comment or two here.
While the movie’s merits as a pure documentary may be justly criticised (I do like the term “argumentary” for the reason that the term moves it out of “documentary” status and labels it more what it really is, which is an op-ed piece), I believe the movie should be commended for a couple of reasons.
1) I believe the movie does a great job of showing how scientific atheists (and perhaps left-leaning people who tend to align up with the evolution worldview), who no doubt consider themselves “open-minded”, are really just as close-minded as those they criticize as close-minded (i.e. the moral/religious-right). Anyone not open to debate, dialog and conversation is close-minded, regardless of political, scientific, moral, ethical or religious beliefs. Ben Stein and company clearly point out the close-mindedness of the current scientific regime.
2) While some may not agree with the flim’s portrayal of the link between Darwinism and Nazism, I think that it provides the viewer with a great cautionary note. Any system which allows the suppression of ideas is in danger of becoming a fascist system. A far-left system that suppresses contrary beliefs can become just as fascist as the far-right (which is whom fascism is usually associated with). The more the scientific community becomes a community of suppression, and the more it suppresses independent thought, contrary beliefs and opinions, and freedom, the more it drifts toward fascism. That’s something I got out of the the movie, that the more the scientific community is allowed to “expel” those who aren’t “believers and warriors” for the cause, the more we’re in danger of losing our right to disagree. Then those who disagree can become marginalized, criticized, ridiculed…to the point where Nazi Germany becomes a reality. The far-right isn’t the only road to fascism.
i worry about the alleged factual distortions, many of which are compiled here. obviously, if it’s true that the scientific community is in some sort of loose conspiracy against intelligent design, scientific american probably isn’t what you’d call an unbiased source (especially contributor michael shermer, founder of the skeptics society, although his article on the movie was refreshingly free of vitriol). but so far, i haven’t heard any responses to what seem to me to be some very serious allegations (other than that of the producer to the claim that the prominent atheists who were interviewed were misled regarding the nature of the documentary, which has sort of degenerated into a he-said-she-said sort of stalemate). has anyone else heard anything?
also, does anyone know what exactly the discovery institute had to do with the film? their name keeps on popping up in things i read about the movie, it seems. i had a lot of bad experiences with them back when i was a student at seattle pacific and, while i’m interested in intelligent design, i’m always very wary of their efforts to promote it.
For what it’s worth, the first time I saw the film, when it was in the rough-cut stage, two people from the Discovery Institute were there as well — and to their credit, they expressed concern that, among other things, interviewees like Alister McGrath might not appreciate being made to appear on the same side as the ID theorists. (McGrath is a scientist turned theologian and, as I understand it, he accepts evolutionary theory and is critical of ID.) As it is, the finished film seems to present McGrath more or less exactly as the rough cut did: it presents him expressing the view that science and faith can get along, but it does nothing to challenge the assumption some viewers might make that McGrath is speaking in support of ID. So the Discovery Institute had access of some sort to the film after giving the interviews and before the film’s release date, but they didn’t necessarily have any say in how the film was actually made.