Win Ben Stein's Money (Please)

I've been a little hesitant to blog about Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for a few reasons. First, I generally do not care for documentaries because they're typically biased and very tricky to navigate. I'd rather just read about whatever I'm interested in. Secondly, I'm not much of a scientist. And third, Jameson found the movie to proffer intriguing questions and issues (you should definitely read that post for yourself, which is very interesting aside from its affiliation with the movie), and I will have to disagree with that slightly. It is not that I entirely disagree or agree with Stein's conclusions, I just found his method of argument less than compelling.

I will also add this bit of a disclaimer: I treat most movies the same, regardless of their themes or moral points of view. Generally, I gauge whether the piece tells an intriguing story or uncovers "truths" in interesting ways. With documentaries, that analysis is slightly different in that instead of a plot, per se, there is an argument to sift through. In these cases, I tend to evaluate the argument, the inclusion or exclusion of certain facts, and whether the documentary will serve any good.

As a sample, Michael Moore's films are very biased, rarely offer concrete facts, and do little than try to "shed light" on a so-called injustice. Contrastingly, Morgan Spurlock's documentaries do not propose to come to greater truths like Moore's films claim to do, and instead follow Spurlock on some sort of personal journey. Because Spurlock presents no facade behind which he operates, I generally like his documentaries. Aside from that, they're usually funny and offer shout-outs to West Virginia.

In Stein's case, my assessment is lukewarm. During the first 40 mi
nutes, he does a great job of demonstrating the scientific community's exclusion of Intelligent Design. What came after, seemed to be a little overkill. Stein rightly illustrates Darwinian connections to Nazism and less extreme forms of eugenics, as if to convey that unchecked adherence to any theory can lead to extremism. Of course, the same can be said of most religions, not that Stein is attempting to have an Academia vs. Christianity debate.

Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, however is the most climactic and illuminating sequence of the film. In this interview, Stein questions Dawkins about the exclusion of any non-Darwinian approaches in the scientific community. The importance of this interview is not so much as what Dawkins says, much of which the film has already established, but its illustratation Dawkin's unquestioning adherence to Darwinian evolution the scientific approach, and Stein's adherence to the idea that there is something wrong with that.

I'm sure that I have a bias against this film simply because it is a documentary, and I fail to see how the film answers any questions or even asks any new ones. That the academic community is traditionally non-Christian is not a new thing, nor is the debate of Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design. Personally, I don't see that Darwinism and Intelligent Design (or even Creationism) are mutually exclusive, and even the film says as much. Ultimately, I don't see how the film was particularly effective or convincing, but I suppose it is good to give voice and credence to a side of the debate that usually remains silent in the mass media, aside from any shout-outs James Dobson or Pat Robertson may give.

As always, feel free to disagree!