They just keep coming. A few hours ago I posted about a lukewarm review of Expelled that appeared on the Variety website, and rottentomatoes.com has pointed me to a few more reviews of the film. A Slant review by Nick Schager skewers the film for the hypocrisy within it;
For a film about American freedom of expression and the necessity for open dialogue, it's hard to imagine Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed being more one-sided, narrow-minded, and intellectually dishonest. Co-written by and starring actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, this "documentary" investigation into the debate between evolution and intelligent design is bald-faced PR rubbish pitifully masquerading as a plea for rational discourse. Such fraudulence is epitomized by Stein casting the proceedings as an authentic investigation into the contentious topic, a pretense exposed as a sham by his biased, manipulative use of language and aesthetic juxtapositions.
A Village Voice review by Vadim Rizov also doesn't look favorably on the film, even though the review itself is little more than a paragraph. The bottom line? Expelled is "Bizarre and hysterical."
FilmStew.com, however, has a rather ambiguous post (not a review) that is little more than a short aside about Ben Stein's career trajectory than the film itself. The author of the post has somewhat bought into the idea that intelligent design is credible and that this is a "freedom" issue;
The evolution of intelligent public discourse is another matter altogether; it is, in fact, devolving. It's not only the basic crux of Expelled - as in why can't other theories be raised as part of a high-level scientific discussion - it's also the Sturm and Drang that surrounds the documentary ahead of its April 18th theatrical release. Very few people denouncing Expelled have actually seen the film, but thanks to the political polarization of the United States, the self-publishing power of the Internet and the incendiary encompassing topic of Expelled, that has not stopped them from posting all manner of condemnation.
[Update #2] Admittedly there are some who have given the film high marks and fail to grasp that it's a propaganda piece (hat-tip to Randy). The target audience for the film, Protestant Christians and people who are already sympathetic to creationism, apparently have given the film "high marks" according to a Florida Baptist Witness report of a special screening for the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. James Parker, the professor of "worldview and culture," doubted that the film would have much effect on "Big Science," but they hoped that it would spur a larger grassroots movement to get creationism back into the classroom;
... I think it will help inform the culture at large as to what is going on. That could have a trickle-down effect in applying corporate public pressure to open up the universities to be more open-minded about other approaches. Only time will tell.
The problem with trickle-down effects is that you should always be aware of what is trickling down on you...
I think I've had quite enough of creationism, young pseudo-skeptics, and horrendous editorials for today, though. I'm going to try to avoid it for the rest of the day, and I'm sure my brain will thank me for it.
[Update]: Today might not be so bad after all. I just found out that Saturday will mark the beginning of the "Year of Evolution" in Philadelphia. I may just have to make a trip down there to enjoy some of the festivities.
- Log in to post comments
And Reason magazine just posted a (mostly negative) review here.
yeah! my first hat-tip.
The real threat with Expelled I think is it will be watched by people who are incredulous but not otherwise particularly informed-- who therefore dismiss the movie's general argument out of hand, but nevertheless internalize many of its minor points. Consider this Variety review, which trashes the movie on many levels but even as it's cogently bashing Expelled slips in little things like this (bold mine):
The problem here of course isn't really even Stein, it's that we don't have any popular sources clearly communicating science, and reading a site with a name like "scienceblogs.com" is sort of a niche thing. People-- even a lot of educated people like whoever writes for Variety-- aren't going to hear about the Sternberg affair, or the fossil record, or the mechanics of cell nanobiology, from anywhere except Ben Stein. So if Stein tells them about the Sternberg affair, well, they may not trust Ben Stein, but what else would they know about it besides what Ben Stein told them? And if someone walks away from Stein's movie thinking the movie was a bunch of bunk, but nonetheless winds up taking its general outline of the Sternberg affair as accurate, is it possible Stein has to some extent won here?
That would have to be corporations which do not rely on the availability of a worker pool that is well-educated in science.
This is petty as all get out but the ads featuring Stein wearing a schoolboy's outfit really get on my nerves. I've been indulging in the mental image of Angus Young smacking him with a guitar...
I'm usually pretty scrupulous about not criticizing works without reading/listening/watching them first but in this case I'll make an exception. I don't need to know the enemy that well or that badly.
another panning of expelled
http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A24437
Hi Brian:
Thanks for checking out my blog piece on FilmStew.com. I was actually not arguing in favor of intelligent design, only in favor of rational discourse (something we've lost at all levels of society - science, politics, religion...).
There's no doubt that "intelligent design" is not the answer to the gaps in Darwin's theory, and that one day these gaps will be properly explained. What I actually find most hilarious is how Ben Stein - without seemingly knowing it - is really is making a case for the Church of Scientology. He really missed his chance by not talking to Cruise, Travolta or Juliette Lewis.
Richard
Modern evolutionary biology is not "Darwin's theory". We've discovered many things which Darwin didn't know about — DNA, for example. Not only have we expanded our knowledge of the fossil record far beyond the material Darwin had available, but also, we augmented that knowledge with the genetic evidence which shows the echoes of species past in the very molecules which define our own growth and development.
Ben Stein? After the Watergate scandal I certainly would not take an X Richard Nixon speech writer seriously. How can one be certain he doesn't have some kind of political agenda like he did when he was speech writer for the Nixon administration by throwing out a "red herring" issue like this? Due to his prior dealings I would certainly be a lot more skeptical of him than mere blind faith or devotion without exploring all the aspects of science, including evolution theory...(which they propose we should just toss out.) If the biblical account given in the book of Genesis is a completely accurate account of both creation and history, it would not only have to explain why dinosaurs became extinct but, also why geographically isolated species such as the polar bear did not die in the flood. For that to happen, the Polar Bears would have to be strong enough to swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3000 miles from the North Pole to the Mesopotamian Basin to reach Noah's ark. To assume they could swim such distances much less stay afloat during a 40 day flood goes against all logical sensibility, especially when we know polar bears die from drowning deaths because the arctic ice upon which they habitat is currently
melting due to global warming. Polar Bears would have died during the "Great Flood" just as surely as the dinosaurs would have yet, there are no fossils records which support a massive polar bear die off which scientists could then use to carbon date. If the Polar Bears really were indeed direct descendants of the bears which came from Noah's Ark, their change in fur color makes one point glaringly obvious, it changed because of evolution. However, these observations make me skeptical that a literal account of "Great Flood" really happened. If the account of Noah's ark given in the bible is inconsistent with scientific observation, common sense, or reality, what's to say the account of creation given in the same book of the Old Testament isn't also inaccurate, inconsistent, or contradictory? ID theorists treat their assumptions as if
they were completely infallible yet, if we are to have a balanced unbiased discussion of all creation theories involved (including evolution theory), why are ID theorists unwilling to discuss weaknesses in their hypothesis? No Intelligence Allowed lives up to it's moniker. ID theorists are allowed to discuss Intelligent Design Theory yet, they refuse to concede any weaknesses in their theory. When I visited the official "Expelled" website to elaborate my
scientific skepticism based on this discussion, my blog was conveniently moderated and quickly deleted. Talk about "No Intelligence Allowed" an honest, unbiased discussion of competing theories were not allowed at their website. What will Ben Stein think of next? The effort to quell any educated discussion on behalf of the "Expelled" promoters seems more like one sided, right wing, fundamentalist propaganda promoted by close minded individuals who are unwilling to openly discuss all the associated issues. Now Avian Transport Theory? How much more fanatical, magical thinking like this can people base their assumptions on without shred of evidence to back it up? Now Ben Stein want to produce another movie which forwards the Fundamentalist theory that claims "The Stork" is responsible for conception under the name of "Avian Transport Theory?" Come on, this is getting ridiculous already.
P.S. Even some conservative Christians think you have gone off the deep end Mr. Stein so, you can't make the absurd claim that only liberals believe in evolution theory or that everyone who believes in evolution is a liberal. That assumption is just inconsistent with social reality.